More Thoughts on The Obama Space Policy

"....former Lockheed Martin executive vice president....."

Sorry, but that title alone would make most taxpayers think twice, or even thrice, before dismissing self-interest aimed at keeping the government cost-plus checks coming.

except Tom Young is correct.

why is it that all the best headlines aren't being used in the US media, like "Failure to Launch" or something?

Apparently "Shoot the Moon" has a lot of urban meanings, some quite crude, some in card games, songs, movies, but one kids version seems very parallel, hmmmmmm:

Shoot the Moon Yo-Yo Trick
The Shoot the Moon Yo-Yo Trick can be a dangerous trick. Do not attempt it until you have mastered the basic tricks and have achieved good control over your yo-yo.

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/advanced-yo-yo-tricks5.htm

So did they find anything besides water in their latest bomb the moon trick, like helium-3 levels or anything that they seemingly no longer want to pursue?

A former LM EVP's opinion may not be the only one sought when looking out for the taxpayer however it is a valid opinion to consider when making national policy decisions. He would have valuable lessons learned from the ill-fated commercial investments made by Lockheed Martin in the space world through their launch ventures (Athena and Atlas V) as well as their commercial satellite operations. Dismissing a retired aerospace leader as a cost-plus seeking fat-cat isn't a smart thing to do.

Since nobody has provided any scenario which provides reliable access to space while closing a sound business case one can only assume the nation is entering into a high risk proposition. If it pays off, we go from paying $50M/astronaut flight to ISS to $30M. That's a whopping 40% savings and the taxpayer wins. If, on the other hand, we need to subsidize the domestic launchers to make them successful the whole deal goes south in a hurry. The other consequences are the we fall behind in our national infrastructure to develop new and challenging space missions due to loss of skilled workforce (all of which seem to be labeled cost-plus fat-cats under this logic so it's probably OK too).

Sorry, we're making a grand mistake if we dismiss the voice of experience and follow the current Obama plan which typically starts with "Hold my beer and watch this..."

that title alone would make most taxpayers think twice, or even thrice, before dismissing self-interest...

Does that calculus also apply to Norm Augustine, former Lockheed-Martin CEO, whose committee came up with this idiot plan? Or to Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, who stands to gain huge new government contracts under the new "direction"?

Might want to check out the mote in thine own eye.

I think it's a mistake to see this as ONE space policy. I see three, or perhaps a single policy based on answers to three questions.

The first is whether to continue a NASA-bossed development program for spacecraft, or to open things up for commercial firms can play a larger role in space, hopefully one shaped by their plans and successes rather than by government edict.

The second is whether to continue human space flight, period, and the Obama administration has decided the answer is Yes.

The third is whether humans are actually going to live in space, to build colonies, to produce their own food from extraterrestrial soil and water, to reduce lunar rocks to air and raw materials, etc. And the clear answer to that is No.

It strikes me that people who embrace Obama's space plans really ought to be honest about what they're putting their arms around.

Given that the POR was only put forward as a reference for the Committee's less "idiotic" Proposals. And that COTs was an open competition and that COT-D is equally so.
Then NO.

Paul. The Moon is still there and will be for future generations. This generation and the next will be exploring and exploiting it for themselves and *by* themselves without the need for Apollo style boots on the ground. Apart from the occasional repairnaut.
Indeed under the paradigm and with the right sort of feedback gloves: we (you!) can even 'touch' the rocks without the chance of getting burned or frozen, as the case may be...

Finally aince we seem to be reduced to biblical levels:
"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." ~Mark 3:25
Dave

You can't really group Elon in with that group. All of his flights are firm fixed price, therefore no cost overruns. He does stand to gain a good profit from working with the government, but they will only be one customer paying the same price as everyone else. As a tax payer, I'm tired of rewarding contractors for being inefficient. This is capitalism at its finest.

I've got an idea for a commercial rocket. It has a ATK first stage a Boeing Upper Stage and a Lockheed Martin capsule. And here's the kicker, it'll have full government oversight into the design.

Keiths comments are balanced and reasonable.

You are not going to find too many people that follow this complex situation in detail that don't have some self-interest in mind. Just look at how bad the political commentators are at it. They don't even know which way they want to spin it.

There isn't going to be a perfect answer. People on both sides of the topic have good points.

What people are missing is that if CxP were to continue, the next 5 years won't look like the last 5, and no one really knows how well the private option will work out. It's all fun until something blows up.

If CxP does not go forward, at least NASA has built itself back up and is ready for the program offices that the admin has posted on NASA.gov. 5 years from now, it will pay off, or the political winds will blow and Washington will screw up again!

I agree that private industry has actually been providing the vehicles all this time and they are not just beginners, but something is still missing. No one knows what kind of oversite is going to make travel safe, who will do it, or how. Money will drive decisions in the private side, and the public side (FAA or NASA, or some combination) is not ready to be the safety cops.

In response to Tom Young's comments, I do not think NASA is asking private industry to do humans in space alone. NASA's intent is to develop a manned capsule. Industry needs and will be given the funds to man-rate vehicles and the guidance in terms of regulations and certification.

With the level of investment the US and European space agencies have, it is not practical to start a mission program to send humans to Mars and sending humans back to the Moon does not offer the ROI that robotic exploration offers.

The change in objectives that Obama's Admin is laying down is reasonable. We need to bide our time and develop next generation propulsion that the heavy lift vehicle that is planned will put in low earth orbit where it will be mated and prepared for trips to the Moon and Mars. That is how we will keep our prominence in space. Biding our time is by no means idle time. The freed up funds should go to advance robotics and launch more robotic vehicles.

Tom Young states, "I think it's not capable of doing something as challenging as humans in space by itself."

Tom Young is definitely not in the good ole nostalgia network of doing things. ARES 1 as the best scenario is on par to promoting steam powered automobiles. Even Constellation employees will tell you it's one of the most issue ridden designs that could have been developed.

Why are we listening to people like this? During Apollo NASA was driven by 20-30 yr olds. Now if you find anyone in that age range, their likely contractors with no voice.

Yes, you can put Elon in with that group. NASA buys its launch vehicles from ULA with firm fixed price contracts. In fact, ULA, Spacex and OSC are all on the same contract. It is called the NLS contract.

If all we want to do is to simply explore space then there's no logical reason to send humans. Robots can do it much faster, safer, and cheaper.

However, if our long term plan is also to colonize and commercialize the extraterrestrial territories in our solar system in order to grow our economy and to enhance the survival of our species-- then a manned space program makes perfect sense.

NASA needs to be the primary pioneers in such an effort so that the privateers and settlers can follow.

But President Obama says that we don't need to return to the Moon and advocates more manned space 'adventurism' for an elite few rather than the exploitation and settlement of the New Frontier!

And that's going to waste hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars over the rest of his administration that could have been used to exploit the natural resources of our solar system, beginning with our closest neighbor, the Moon!

Marcel F. Williams

"The change in objectives that Obama's Admin is laying down is reasonable. We need to bide our time"...

dude, Bots-n-Stuff gluttony and NasaLaunchInc??
Risking the near and distant future of American HSF Operations?? so that Career students can stay in school forever?? What would Yoda and/or ObeWan say to Luke Skywalker?

beware of the dark side?

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/theyll-be-over-the-moon---intercasino-offers-space-walking-astronauts-a-down-to-earth-experience-91582789.html

or "may the force be with you"?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-jones/dude-youre-the-president_b_543788.html

Have NASA study 'climate change?' Heck, why don't you have them study aliens from Gamma Cephei? A human on Mars by 2023? Be the President. Challenge. Lift people up. Do a Kennedy...put someone on Mars by the end of your second term! Make it a pledge. Make it something people all over the world could marvel at:

"When I deliver my state of the Union speech in the third year of my second term, I will do a live hookup to a team of American, Israeli and Palestinian astronauts who will be setting up camp at the foot of Olympus Mons, the tallest mountain in the solar system, on our sister planet Mars!"

You won dude. You can do it.

it's a marvelous night for a moondance

The critics of Tom Young should maybe check his bio. Before he was Lockheed Martin EVP he worked for NASA as Director of Goddard, Deputy Director of Ames, and Director of the NASA HQ Planetary Exploration Program. And before that he was Mission Director for the Viking Mars landers. I consider Tom to be one of the smartest and most experienced people in the space business.

"The third is whether humans are actually going to live in space, to build colonies, to produce their own food from extraterrestrial soil and water, to reduce lunar rocks to air and raw materials, etc. And the clear answer to that is No."
"In FY 2011, NASA will initiate demonstration projects in the areas of in situ resource utilization (ISRU), autonomous precision landing and hazard avoidance, and advanced in-space propulsion, leading to demonstrations on either robotic precursor or flagship missions.

In Situ Resource Utilization: NASA will fund research in a variety of ISRU activities aimed at using lunar, asteroidal, and Martian materials to produce oxygen and extract water from ice reservoirs. A flight experiment to demonstrate lunar resource prospecting, characterization, and extraction will be considered for testing on a future Flagship Technology Demonstration or robotic precursor exploration mission. Concepts to produce fuel, oxygen, and water from the Martian atmosphere and from subsurface ice will also be explored."
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main_Exploration.pdf
HUGS DAVE

Experience and being smart or not should not weigh in on his argument.

His argument is not that rock solid. There was a high probablity of constellation being unsuccessful as well. The funny thing is that NASA is plenty to blame not to plan for budgeting issues earlier... You can't say the same for private entities.

I recognize that things could have been done better, but to continue on a path that is expensive as constellation was and still possible fail was completely unacceptable. Even if it succeeded, we go to the moon again...? for what?

Don't include Elon? Hey, here's a fun fact: you know how Obama was praised for being very tech-savvy with all his websites, etc during his campaign? Yeah, Elon was the architect behind all of that. There's a reason all this legislation seems to favor SpaceX

You know what else I suspect? No one can figure out why we've delayed heavy-lift selection till 2015, here's my theory: so that SpaceX can compete in the process. If NASA picked architectures right now there's no way SpaceX would get the contract

Any part of the President's plan that is dated beyond 2020 is pure vaporware. And a lot of what is now being hyped will just end up in a trash can.

Why are our NASA leaders insulting our intelligence by trying to pretend that it isn't otherwise? I mean, okay, part of their job is putting a happy face on whatever comes down the government poop-chute and part of their job involves keeping the troops motivated - so they are doing their job. But still, only those drunk on Obamessiah koolaid believe that a great new era for NASA is in the making.

The best hope is that we will keep some things alive, pick up the pieces in a few years and maybe do some real research in the meantime.

As for "Orion Lite" - what a joke - why not just dust off the plans for X-38?

Orion Lite is two things:
1. Salvaging what we can from the wreckage of Hurricane Obama.
2. White Collar Welfare.

@ions2go
In response to Tom Young's comments, I do not think NASA is asking private industry to do humans in space alone … Industry needs and will be given the funds to man-rate vehicles and the guidance in terms of regulations and certification.

Indeed, but such regulations and certifications are currently to blame for much of the cost that private business have in supporting shuttle and Constellation. How are these procedures going to affect the cost on private industries man-rating a vehicle?

With the level of investment the US and European space agencies have, it is not practical to start a mission program to send humans to Mars and sending humans back to the Moon does not offer the ROI that robotic exploration offers. The change in objectives that Obama's Admin is laying down is reasonable.

If we cannot support human space flight or deem its benefits inferior to robotic missions, that is a perfectly fine rationale, but lets call it like it is! Obama said that we are not abandoning human space flight and insists that he is its biggest supporter.

We need to bide our time and develop next generation propulsion that the heavy lift vehicle that is planned will put in low earth orbit where it will be mated and prepared for trips to the Moon and Mars. That is how we will keep our prominence in space. Biding our time is by no means idle time. The freed up funds should go to advance robotics and launch more robotic vehicles.

We have the technology for heavy lift propulsion. As I have stated before, costs in the aerospace industry has much less to do with technology than with processes and procedures. In fact, all things being equal programs with new technology are inherently more expensive because they have a bigger learning curve and testing phase, that is the reason Constellation used much heritage technology. The current plan funds research, which is easy to do, but it does not have a plan to fund a future development program which is the vastly more costly and complicated part. Where is the study that funding research would save money? The so-called gap in a development program, which frees up money for other endeavors, provides another challenge in dealing with a highly skilled and specialized work force. You cannot turn on and off the aerospace industry base at will. Many places are already dealing with the challenge of knowledge management and retirements, a long gap would provide a serious and perhaps final blow.

Let,s be clear on what the Obama commercial crew initiative is and what it is not. It is not commercial, but really just outsourcing. When you say commercial, it implies that there is a business case for a company to produce a product or provide a service that is independent of government. In a commercial world there are many providers of such products and services. Right now there is no business case for commercial crew and there are no providers of this service. So what we really will do is just pay the first winners of Cx contracts $2.5 billion in termination costs, and then turnaround and award money to a new set of companies. In the end, there will be no company that will provide a fixed price contract for this service. It simply has too much risk for them. Now SpaceX may be able to claim victory in May with the Falcon 9 launch, but that does not mean they have the capital or liquidity to continue to provide this service over the long run or sustain any significant failures. Remember they are a private company funded by venture capital, so they do not have a bucket of shareholder money to fall back on when things go south. Nor do any of the startups have diversified investments or product lines to absorb any losses.

In a commercial world, NASA could go to dozens of companies for launching crew if a company folds, but this is not what is going to happen. I agree that Ares I is not the way to go for getting astronauts to orbit, but let's call the new initiative what it is - outsourcing not commercial.

"Even if it succeeded, we go to the moon again...? for what?"

No reason really. Wait, except...

Setup a base to learn how and demonstrate ability to:
Design a suitable long-term dwelling for the harsh environments we will encounter if humans are to move into space.
Decide the right materials for building on a planetary body.
Get the materials to the surface in the most efficient manner possible.
Discover the best building techniques for that environment.
Study the long term effects of living in such a manner.

Let's see, while we are there anyway, we can research and demonstrate ISRU, which involves:
Studying the moon to see if there is any other materials we can use.
Figure out the best way to extract said materials and process them.
Work out those little details about actually doing this (like, for instance, how to power our stuff - solar won't work in a shadowed crater - wait unless we run a long extension cord - wait, it's gets dang cold in shadow and brutally hot in the sunlight, how do we handle that? - etc, etc)

Then, maybe while they are sitting on the back porch of the base watching the Earth set, they will have time for a few science experiments...

All these things (and more, of course) we will have to do on Mars. It's better (and cheaper) to learn them 3 days away rather than months and months away. Not even talking about the restricted launch opportunities to Mars as compared to the Moon...

We go to the Moon to find out:

1. If humans and other animals can adapt and reproduce long term under a 1/6 hypogravity environment. We already know that a microgravity environment is inherently deleterious to long term human health. We have no idea if this is true under a hypogravity environment. If it turns out that humans can remain healthy under a 1/6 gravity then colonizing the Moon and Mars should be a cinch.

2. The lunar regolith contains a sea of oxygen. And now we know that the poles contain ice. The export of lunar oxygen and hydrogen to the Lagrange point fuel depots could dramatically reduce the cost of beyond LEO manned and unmanned space travel. And this could also open up the Moon for space tourism; the polls that I've conducted always place the Moon at the top of a space tourist destination.

3. The raw regolith on the Moon could also be of value for space stations placed at the Lagrange points since such stations are going to require several hundred to several thousand tonnes of mass shielding to protect them from solar storms and the long term effects of galactic radiation. So the export of lunar regolith makes permanently space stations and Lagrange points possible.

4. Thanks to real time robotic teleoperation, most of the work force for any future exploration and industrialization of the Moon could be located on the surface of the Earth-- creating jobs right here at home.

And what's more, we don't even need to put a human there to do all this! Except the sitting on the back porch bit. Our avatars will be working 24/7. Poor things!
As to power in a dark crater: that's what the SPS is for. Non laser based for obvious reasons...

In the final analysis the Moon and Mars environments are too dissimilar for any architectural advantages.
But in microgravity, one regolith covered space potato is very much like another regolith covered space potato. Except that under the regolith some may be water rich cosmic dustbunnies and others dinosaur killing lumps of NiFe with a side order of platinum! It will be like unwrapping a series of cosmic christmas presents!

Flexible path is not about building bases. It's about building ships. Just as our world is seven tenths... but I am repeating myself.

"In a commercial world, NASA could go to dozens of companies for launching crew if a company folds"

Maybe in a mature commercial world, but not a commercial world still in its infancy. Did the airline industry have dozens of carriers to choose from at the beginning ? No it did not.

Good points, except for the fact the budgeting projections fo rconstellation neglected a lunar lander and any of this research you speak of.

I agree these are great things to do, but we can do them without getting the primary transport concept established.

"And what's more, we don't even need to put a human there to do all this!"
You do if your goal is for humans to learn to live and work on planetary bodies other than Earth.

"As to power in a dark crater..."
Whatever. The point was not to debate the solutions to particular problems. The point is that there will be thousands of these little details to solve and everything we dream up here on Earth will not necessarily be correct. The only we way can ever know if a solution is correct or not is go up there and try it.

"Flexible path is not about building bases. It's about building ships."
No, Flexible Path is about learning to live and work in space at progressively further distances from Earth as we choose destinations that are farther and farther away. I can't imagine any scenario where we will build more than one type of crewed vehicle for BEO ops that don't involve actual landings. Building bases is not about building bases. It's about learning to live and work on planetary bodies. I absolutely disagree that living on the Moon will not have direct, relevant, and valuable lessons for colonizing Mars. Lessons that can't be learned here on Earth.