OSTP Preview of Thursday's Presidential Speech

Another speech written by someone else, read by Obama in a teleprompter.
All the while his head swivels from left to right and back again.

The new Orion-lite CERV is a smokescreen which does not provide the US with a human launch capability, and still prematurely throws away Shuttle capabilities. It really provides an unneeded emergency return capability and sets NASA up to compete with commercial efforts.

The one thing that is most certain is Obama's defeat long before a heavy lift vehicle is ever talked about.

> "The President will lay out the goals and strategies in this new vision for NASA, including a sequence of deep-space destinations matched to growing capabilities, progressing step-by-step until we are able to reach Mars."

If Obama had said that in the first place he would not have had so much grief.

There is no way that NASA can do all that extra work for $1.2 billion a year for only 5 years. No difficult decision was made - so this Spend, Spend, Spend list is just a new way of voting Present.

Geez, obviously OSTP & Holdren, Bolden, and Garver need new jobs because they're as lost in manned spaceflight as the Griffin-Bush crowd.

This part from the Sentinel's version is just plain crap:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-obama-speech-20100413,0,1669469.story

"create a $40-million initiative to help Kennedy Space Center workers find jobs after the space shuttle is retired later this year...The aim is to "help the Space Coast transform its economy and prepare its workforce for opportunities for tomorrow," said a senior administration official, who was authorized to speak only on background Tuesday.

Up to 9,000 KSC workers are set to lose their jobs when the shuttle era ends. But the White House says Obama's plans for KSC – including nearly $2 billion for a five-year modernization program that had been previously announced – would add 2,500 jobs."

Nope. Let's try to simplify:

There's already been a workforce transition program at KSC for several years (ya frickin idiots!). They Ain't Interested in non-hsf work!

KSC HSF job numbers maintain or grow in Florida, not recede, or no Florida votes period.

Obama wants to build an Orion capsule to return to Earth, not to venture beyond LEO? Why not just fully fund the DreamChaser (HL-20) which was originally conceived for such a roll?

Obama wants NASA to spend billions studying global warming while at the same time developing a heavy lift-- hydrocarbon-- rocket that will probably be one of the largest greenhouse gas polluting vehicle's ever invented!

Plus its going to take him five years to decide to build a heavy lift vehicle? That's actually putting us back on the Ares V schedule.

We need to start building a clean hydrogen fueled directly shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle-- right now! Stop playing games Mr. President!

Marcel F. Williams

What happened to living on the moon to learn how to live on other worlds. Clearly a big omission.

The human launch capability is probably going to be SpaceX and/or maybe Boeing, if they decide there's enough profit margin in it for them. Ares I remains thankfully extinct. Falcon with Dragon was likely to beat Ares I with Orion to the ISS by a very wide margin anyway. Why waste the money?

Some might say that SpaceX hasn't proven they can do it. Well, I don't doubt they can, do you?

I don't know what's up with the choose a HL design by 2015 idea. Unless they are hoping commercial aerospace will come up with one of them too. Which I don't see coming. Unless they know something the rest of us don't I'd want NASA to have a true shuttle derived sidemount, similar to the one Shannon talked about in his presentation to the Augustine Committee, sitting on the pad for its first test flight in about two years. It's an ambitious schedule and many detractors would say that NASA can't do it but I'd like to see them try. It would be cargo only, not man-rated.

With all due respect, every single president since Reagan (and most presidential candidates) has had both speech writers and telepromters. There's plenty to rag about with regards to the space policy of the Obama administration, regardless of which side you're on; complaints about teleprompters are at best a mindless distraction from the real issues.

Alright folks - we have some more detail now and some metrics that demonstrate what the president's goals and objectives for HSF are.

Continuing Orion development as an escape system creates an alternative path to develop EELV based crew systems in case COTS doesn't work without giving ULA a blank check.

A specific timeline on heavy lift provides a framework (with the right implementing language) to make sure its not another kick the can / pray for unobtanium non-productive development effort.

I think its entirely appropriate and useful for everyone to closely bird dog how congress and the agency define and fund the tech development, especially making sure there are specific metrics for outputs / accomplishments within defined date and dollars parameters. But make no mistake, this is the rebirth of real human exploration and a foundation for colonization.

This is a space policy board - anyone that feels compelled to engage in Palinesque outbursts has a variety of other outlets to choose from.

"Begins major work on building a new heavy lift rocket sooner, with a commitment to decide in 2015 on the specific heavy-lift rocket that will take us deeper into space."

Remember when Dorothy was told to ignore the man behind the curtain, and focus her attention on the all powerful Wizard of Oz?

What a joke. We already have the major elements of a heavylift vehicle (J2X and 5 segment SRB)under development. What in the name of God are we going to know 5 years from now, that we don't know now? Please ladies and gentlemen keep your eyes on the magician's hands at all times.

LOL.

As with my comment last night, it's too bad this country is run by utterly selfish politicians and not real leaders.

As someone with several STEM degrees working on the program of record, I'm not really interested in working anymore for an agency that is at the whim of whatever passing fancy wind that blows in DC every 3-4 years. NASA should either be long-term visioned, or freed from stupid (and I define that as unqualified to lead a scientific endeavor) administrators that have no business in the business.

rant on/
Lori Garver is a political science major for god sakes. I took two semesters of poli-sci in one of my 3 college degrees, and found the best grades were produced by BS grounded upon opinionated malarchy. (Which seems to be the guiding principle of the nation as of late.) Did she have any course of study based on hard scientific rigor?? How about Obama? Anyone in office these days??????

If you can't talk the talk, DO NOT walk the walk, and get out of the way. We design, build, test and fly here, it's harder than it looks and we are very much qualified. WE, are rocket scientists.
/rant off.

Nothing he can say now at the flyby will overcome the growing momentum against him.

Neil Armstrong has upstaged Obama.

It's all over the national news now...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/

So the Constellation architecture under the President has gone from a lunar base plan all the way down to just a meager escape module for the ISS.

If the Congress accepts this sorry-- cowardly-- agenda then they should all be fired!

You can download a copy of President Obama's 'sad' new plan for NASA at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp-space-conf-factsheet.pdf

Reading this without the bagage of US national politics, this makes a lot of sense.

Formally deferring the decision on HLV means results from R&D on BEO capabilities will be in so we wll have a mch better idea of what is needed - as well as still starting sooner than Constellation probably would have.

It also gives time for the position of the commercial sector to clarify - we will know if SpaceX etc. can deliver by then. At the same time, developing a new engine will give a kick start to several HLV options, although it means NASA will have to use the engine it has rather than design the usual customised solution (a big mind set change which NASA has so far failed to make).

It it all works out, by 2015 we will have some BEO capabilities, a functioning commercial LEO sector and be in a position to make a clear and coherent plan for deep space exploration. If the private sector fails, we will have a plan B for human launch systems.

Pretty smart, it seems to me.

"Some might say that SpaceX hasn't proven they can do it. Well, I don't doubt they can, do you?"

It's not enough of a slam dunk that I would bet my future LEO access on it. I figure they have about a 50/50 chance for success by 2015. That's why keeping some version of Orion going forward is prudent although I bet that decision was driven more by Space X complaining about the 6 month loiter requirement to perform the lifeboat task driving costs up(especially mission control support) rather then concerns about preserving options.

"Unless they know something the rest of us don't I'd want NASA to have a true shuttle derived sidemount, similar to the one Shannon talked about in his presentation to the Augustine Committee, sitting on the pad for its first test flight in about two years."

If you think that can be done in two years I have abridge I want to sell you. A more realistic agressive schedule is about 7 to 8 years.

"rebirth of real human exploration and a foundation for colonization... anyone that feels compelled to engage in Palinesque outbursts "

ok, soooooo what would a Jon Stewart outburst be to an arrogant democratic ivory tower political half-baked idiotic delusional spinmeistered idea, hmmmmmmm??? (oh, like nukes, on rockets, from earth, to Mars? where's Dr. Hanson and Al Gore when ya need em, huh? so how does a nuke in space accident compare to coal mining in the green democratic world, huh?)

HSF launches from sometime after 2015 is still a broken promise from Obama to the KSC Shuttle workforce, period.

Manup the HLV to 2012, extend Shuttle until then, and ya might have a Florida voter friendly plan (not to mention something that will actually succeed, unlike CxP or Merchant 7)

(you are aware that Florida Republicans will probably steer ya towards Florida voter unfriendly compromise ideas, right?)

more importantly, check out Houston's attempt to assist Florida:

" and perhaps consider adding more shuttle flights beyond their scheduled retirement this year, a senior White House official said Tuesday...The official, speaking to the Houston Chronicle on condition of anonymity...Asked if Obama also would unveil plans for additional shuttle flights beyond the three remaining missions, the official replied: “We'll get back to you on that. We're not saying anything today on that...The president's willingness to deliver his message to the NASA community at KSC and his proposal to boost NASA spending by $6 billion over the next five years shows his commitment to manned space operations”

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6957758.html

now that's an "official" that needs a new job.

"This is a space policy board - anyone that feels compelled to engage in Palinesque outbursts has a variety of other outlets to choose from."

A little full of ourselves are we. Only person who has a right to police what people say on this site is Mr. Cowing as the moderator. Your Palinesque outburst is another person's passionate defense of what they believe is the failure of the proposed policy.

"We design, build, test and fly here, it's harder than it looks and we are very much qualified. WE, are rocket scientists."

That would be fine if you worked for the National Rocket Agency. NASA's job, as defined in the Space Act that created it, is to explore and develop space. The vehicle is not the goal.

er actually its "More stupid"
http://en.allexperts.com/q/General-Writing-Grammar-680/Stupid-Stupider.htm
/grammar police

But it isn't. Instead the Obama/ Holdren/ Bolden/ Garver/ Black Hat 'conspiracy' is thinking beyond the next fifteen second election cycle. Indeed it is thinking so far ahead that most people, so firmly rooted in their Cold War past, can't see the facts before their astro_noses. I paraphrase to you a question once asked by someone much less stupid than I: "Is the surface of a planet -or Moon; or Mars- the best location for an advancing technological civilisation?"

With regard to the CEV "lite". If the new paradigm is an aero-breaked/ assisted orbital return from a L1 based Interplanetary SuperHighway Gateway do we need an Apollo on Steroids capsule capable of the TEI ballistic fireball? No! Does America need to save money? Yes! And an Assured Crew Return Vehicle [ACRV] can evolve into the standard "Escape Pod" as advertised in Star Wars, Star Trek and the other Science Fiction Realities that sadly detract from the Space discourse. It also stops American taxpayer dollars being sent to those peski Russkis. Are these detractors un-American?

With regards to a Kerolox first stage. It's more efficient. A stonking big RP1 powered engine more powerful than the peski Russki RD equivalent would also put America back in the lead w.r.t. "Rocket Science!" Talk about unpatriotic!

As someone posted recently (my apologies for not providing the credit) if Obama walked across the Indian River Lagoon, the talking point would be "Obama can't swim!"

As to the post of newpapyrus April 13, 2010 10:29 PM Words fail me!
The CRV was the X-38, HL-20 Dreamchaser is a private spinoff, it will get no preferential treatment.
"Obama wants NASA to spend billions studying global warming..." Really? All I see is the much needed replacement of the Earth Observation Sats (launched by George H. W. Bush) plus IceSat 2 and the dreaded "GoreSat" (You know, the one with the orbital mind control lasers. Shhhh!)

Here's an equation newpapyrus:
6xBFR (if we are lucky) != gazillions of internal combustion engines/annum. And if we get the foundational infrastructure to build an SPS "Constellation" (sorry) then the overall Carbon Footprint may be negative!

However I do agree we do:
"...need to start building a clean hydrogen fueled directly shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle"

And finally AnObamanaut April 13, 2010 10:12 PM
Misquoting (truncating) to prove your point?
"Up to 9,000 KSC workers are set to lose their jobs when the shuttle era ends. But the White House says Obama's plans for KSC — including nearly $2 billion for a five-year modernization program that had been previously announced — would add 2,500 jobs "as compared to the prior path"[my emphasis] that included the Constellation moon-rocket program."
ibid.
Tsk Tsk.

"clean hydrogen fueled directly shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle"

More clueless posts. The shuttle and derived vehicles are more polluting than any hydrocarbon vehicle. The SRBs create more pollution than any equivalent hydrocarbon engine. There is no such thing as "clean hydrogen fueled", hydrogen is produced from natural gas (a hydrocarbon). "Industrial production is mainly from the steam reforming of natural gas, and less often from more energy-intensive hydrogen production methods like the electrolysis of water." Guess how the power for electrolysis is produced? In coal or gase fired electrical generation plants.

So, know something before posting.

Lots of different camps evident in the comments of the past few days. Lots of emotion-laden heat with only occasional flashes of actual light. I suppose I'd be more inclined to generate heat than light, too, if my job were at stake.

Folks are tired of waiting -- I know I am. I'm 50 years old, and I've been waiting since I was 12 for astronauts to return to the moon. Like many others, I worry that I'll either be too old to know what's going on or dead before truly great space exploration happens again. That dynamic helps to explain some of the impatience evident in these comments -- some of the "just build something now" sentiment.

For whatever it's worth, the new policy does not simply say "wait until 2015 to decide on heavy lift." It would start work on heavy-lift now, spending $3.1 billion over five years on research to develop a new hydrocarbon engine and other technologies. No doubt it would be simpler to start building a new shuttle-derived HLV now -- but not necessarily better. With five years of R&D, there'll be more tools in the belt -- more options -- when they hit that hard decision point five years from now.

Also, nobody has talked much about OSTP's very intriguing claim that Orion Lite will enable an additional 3,500 astronaut days in space over the next decade. That clearly implies an additional permanent crew person on ISS -- an increase from six to seven. That's no small thing.

Really, the debate seems to boil down to the trust issue, and the entirely polarized atmosphere that pervades all of American government decision-making these days. If you trust the current policymakers, then you'll be forced to conclude that a not-bad policy is taking shape. If you don't trust 'em, then you'll think we're screwed even if they invented and built warp drive tomorrow.

Let me get this straight, the Administration proposes to human rate a spacecraft (Orion-lite) but then you don’t fly humans on it to orbit (according to Wash Post article)? Oh that’s right, Space-X is supposed to do that and we can’t turn our backs on the Commercial Crew initiative. What a joke this is. They screwed up the initial budget announcement with proposals that didn’t make sense and now it appears that the new and "improved" version doesn’t make much sense either. If we’re going to develop Orion Lite, why pay anyone else to develop another vehicle? Just compete the launch services to carry Orion to orbit. There’s not enough market for multiple LEO spacecraft. Just like there hasn’t been enough market for satellites to support both EELV Launchers. The government is going to pay the tab for all of this and it’s not going to be less expensive to support multiple providers. The Bush/Griffin era had its flaws, no doubt, but this Administration has no idea what it is doing. They're idealists with no common sense who are just trying to save the FL electoral vote for the next Presidential election. Do they really think the highly educated workforce here on the Space Coast can't see through this political theater?

Very well.

Rocket launchers unit stand ready!

The runway is cleared for takeoff. We will meet the blimp in the sky with the army air core logo next to the nasa meatball. Then off to low earth orbit bringing the parts with FAA TSO NASA HSR stamped on them. The Human tended planetary spacecraft is being assembled on orbit with an air launched mission to support the activity.

This is all done magnetics and electricity for the most part, some gases are needed also,,,LOL.

So it appears we must place our thinking caps on and not let operations run the show! Operations the parasite! A parasite is an organism that lives on or inside another organism to the detriment of the host organism.

""And Kraft said he sees no reason to speed up work on a new larger rocket, saying, "We need a heavy-lift vehicle like we need a hole in the head.""

Chris Kraft, EELV man?

V,

Speaking of opinionated malarky it seems to be you've selected Garver as a whipping girl but failed to mention the Augustine Commission. The majority of whom have expressed support for the new budget. Are you now going to argue that they have no STEM credentials or will you just slink away and look for other ways to apply your undergraduate poly sci experience?

Seems like Neil Armstrong doesn't like Obama's space policy either: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/14/obama-vs-neil-armstrong-nasa-constellation/

Folks:

I'm with Les in believing that five years is way too long to "develop" a heavy lift vehicle. John Shannons' side mount idea is way good enough for many beyond earth orbit missions. I think using it for crew launches is wasteful though.

An Orion life boat isn't that bad of an idea. If they're smart they will use a Common Berthing Mechanism as the forward hatch it would be a great ship for cargo up. If they overlap with the replacement craft the old one could be used for cargo down capability which will be lost with the retirement of the Shuttle.

Oh yeah, I didn't see any mention of more or extended schedule Shuttle flights. So there goes the reason for keeping the External Tank factory going. This will cause the real gap in heavy lift development and it's the gap we really want to close.

tinker

Resistance to any kind of change (and i'm not talking about the campaign slogan change) is a natural thing especially when it cost thousands of people their jobs, but i'm and optimist so let's look at the bright side of things....

While i don't think this budget is the best alternative, i do think it can do some good in the long run. NASA culture in the space flight arena is not very adaptive and doesn't facilitate creativity and innovation very well. That's not a bad thing when operating a vehicle where safety is the major concern. But when it come to actually taking an idea and moving it from the mind to space, its horrible. This "gray" period may help change the culture of NASA some so that we'll be able to think outside of the box and go do some things that are edgy. We may even allow a low TRL technology to fly and be perfectly fine with accepting the risk because its about pushing the envelop instead of doing what we know we can do with 1960s technology.

My biggest criticism of Cx program was that it was so constrained by congress and their requirement to essentially use shuttle's supply chains to preserve jobs in their district (the infamous heritage hardware requirement) locked the program into a design that wasn't the best this country could do (the jupiter thingy wasn't either). Without the shuttle and Ares supply chains as a constraint we may be able to build something that is truly inspiring.

This budget may be a necessary step in that direction. It's forward thinking instead of the usual reactionary politics.

Before You guy go off and call me names, I challenge you to say one thing positive...

there is so much whining and hating going on around here, it's really pathetic. it's also somewhat hilarious. to be completely honest i can't wait for nasa's workforce to be slimmed down, i.e. for the selfish whiners to lose their jobs.
spacex has accomplished more since its founding than nasa has in the past 30 years or so when it comes to launcher development. it'll be a great day when the shuttle is retired and commercial takes over.
spacex/orbital/bigelow/... ftw!:):)

only in your delusional dreams.

Folks, CNN is airing the most excellent coverage today of KSC Shuttle workfers - trenches types - on site, live interviews, everything!

Great job CNN!

Cessna:

Neil Armstrong has upstaged Obama.
It's all over the national news now...

When Neil Armstrong comes out of his shell to say something, you had better pay attention. Unlike when Buzz opens his continious yapper to gain more and more Buzz (attention) to himself.

So there we have it: We now have the very first two people to walk on the moon taking opposite sides of this debate. The Commander of Apollo 11 has one view, and his charge takes another. Who is "right"? Given that Armstrong knew enough to take manual control over a situation he evaluated as dire, and safely guide the Eagle to a historic touchdown, my money will always go to that man who speaks little, but when he does choose to speak he chooses his words carefully.

Buzz off, Buzz!

As the president's speech at KSC approaches and the end of flights for STS (which we saw coming for years) is pending, this has caused people to panic and start spouting out partisan drivel.

There is nothing the president can say or do at this point that will satisfy people.

A lot of this starts from NASA not having a long-term plan that is immune to the weather changes in Washington. That dates back many presidents ago. No one is going to fix it overnight and make everyone happy.

I doubt all the changes can be blamed on Obama, Garver, Bolden, or the Augustine Commission. These people are not emperors that can just decree what they want.

I suspect a lot of changes can be traced back to the OMB, and I don't see many people commenting on that, but everyone takes it out on who they want to.

"This "gray" period may help change the culture of NASA some so that we'll be able to think outside of the box and go do some things that are edgy"

Not unless you ditch OPM rules for civil servants. By it's very nature the civil service HR rules reward taking the conservative, tried and true route and doesn't reward taking risk even when it pays off. Less likely to fail and you be held accountable for the failure.

This document should have been released Feb 2. It claims a lot of high ground, in the form of specific features and benefits of the new plan. So now if you simply assert it is nothing, you're either a lazy thinker or a liar. If you think it won't work, make a case instead of just lobbing feces. To oppose the plan, you must now argue rationally to reclaim this ground.

Unbound by the self-licking ice-cream cone of blind partisanship, I look at this document and rate its claims as plausible, though perhaps requiring a 10-knot tailwind. That's the best anyone could have said about VSE in 2004 (weren't *any* of you skeptical back then, with no budget increase?); and it's far beyond what anyone could say about CxP last year. How did it come to this? It wasn't the quality of engineering, it was leadership - the Apollo on Steroids ambition vs. the budget we're in.

Here's a thought exercise: pretend for a moment it was Bush or Huckabee or Romney who made this change, so that your partisan blinders come off and you can think about the facts again. Pretend you live in Montana or Tennessee and you've never seen any substantial aerospace money in your county.

Face it, the POR was circling the drain, and taking VSE with it. This is a gamble to rescue the VSE goals. The Battlestar Galactica approach to BEO travel was eventually going to sink us financially and still leave all of you grousing in the dark about lack of congressional support. This plan is almost point-by-point a strategy to pull back from the pitfalls of Battlestar Galactica and improve the robustness of the program.

When the man that said "Failure is not an option." (A globally recognized America defining expression) is raising *major* red flags....

America should listen.
So should Obama.

And if he will not, congress will!

"When the man that said "Failure is not an option." (A globally recognized America defining expression)"

You mean the producer of Apollo 13? I didn't see him on the list.

Ohhh, you don't mean you believe the old myth about Kranz saying that? ;)

He did say it.
He wrote a book titled as such. :P

"This is a space policy board - anyone that feels compelled to engage in Palinesque outbursts has a variety of other outlets to choose from."

And your use of the term "Palinesque" proves that you need to avail yourself of the other outlets.

Physician, heal thyself.

At this point I'm convinced that about the only thing Obama could say tomorrow that would satisfy the majority of the KSC workforce and the rest of the "sky is falling crowd" would be "ok lets scrap everything and fly Shuttle forever." Sad but true.......as time goes on this whole thing seems to be less about what is best for our national space program and more about how many KSC Shuttle techs can be retained.