Hearing Reaction

The Bloomberg article is rubbish The AP report little better and neither mention Norms's testimony which laid out the facts that your Congress seemingly don't want to hear... or cannot comprehend.
I suspect the latter.
Perhaps you need to clean House and start again.
At the risk of repeating myself: Hearing archive
http://tinyurl.com/34pgsem

Thank you Gene and Neil.

Your nation has called upon you once again and you did not disappoint.

May congress listen.

Sounds like former astronauts holding huge decorations and global admiration for all eternity have drawn a line in the sand like President Bush did several years ago when he said "Either you're with us or against us".

Something tells me their pleas are going to fall on deaf ears just like it has happened for each credible person prior to them that stepped up to the plate to take a swing at reviving a huge and costly rocket building program with no destination to go to.

I tell you, we haven't been to an asteroid (logical choice for our next distant destination) and done that nor have we been to Mars and done that either. Once our great and brave heros who honorably served our country go take their nap, the as-yet-to-be heros of the future will step up and sing.

There's a longer AP story that includes:

Cernan said NASA administrator Charles Bolden warned in a briefing last week the failure of the private sector to provide spacecraft in a timely way could result in a bailout equal to that given the auto industry.

Bolden, who also testified at the hearing, said he did not recall making that remark.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gKFnlXajCgviSlf7Cda5R8wAjizQD9FLHRJ83

Even worse, think it was Vitter that suggested to Rockefeller to let the astronauts testify first, which Rock shot down. So Bolden went first and he was specifically asked about the bailout statement. Denied and mentioned something about unknown others that might have been listening in and may have miscontrued something.

So when Cernan testified that he specifically heard Bolden make the commercial bailout statements and wrote them down in his notes himself, Bolden just lost credibility and the Dems looked like idiots.

Blessings to Armstrong and Cernan for calling out the plan for what it is, a mission to nowhere. Now if they would just get off that CxP mission to nowhere.......

Rank and file are realizing that the Merchant7 is just a cover for lowering unmanned launch costs - to get competition for ULA to lower prices - that's what'll be 5 to 7 years away, at least, and will likely end up costing more than ULA in the end.

I watched the hearing today. My thoughts are 1) Holdren said virtually nothing 2)Bolden's time as Administrator of NASA is limited 3)Bolden sealed his own fate by telling Armstrong and Cernan at their "briefing" that "we will have to bail out the commercial sector eventually like we did with GM", 4)Obama and Holdren are going to leave Bolden twisting in the wind, 5)with the Committee Chair admitting he is no friend of NASA's and Obama reducing America's stature in the world on multiple fronts, it is easy to see the end of NASA.

With all due respect to the Apollo astronauts, I think this debate needs more input from rocket engineers.

All we are seeing on the news pages are bean counters, politicians, and astronauts fussing over money/mission decisions. The technical side is not so much part of the debate, but it should be.

All the hearings showed is how badly Gene Cernan is out of touch. First he makes up stuff about "the biggest bailout in history" (Try topping the TARP) then he goes to the "1 cent check off" (do the math see how much money that would raise even if every taxpayer contributed "1 more cent"...and his dismissal of new technologies.

Cernan was the best thing that could happen to Bolden...Cernan and KBH both sunk any alternative plans. The Obama policy just keeps rolling along.

It is sad how badly Gene Cernan made a fool of himself. Armstrong has figured out which way the train is moving. Cernan...sad

Robert G. Oler

Norm was advocating spending hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars for space adventurism (going places with no intent to stay) instead of returning to the Moon in order to exploit its natural resources because he said that the kids that he talked to didn't want us to return to the Moon.

He's also advocated NASA continue its mission to LEO on steroids by continuing the ISS. I thought he wanted NASA to move beyond LEO? Yet most of the manned spaceflight expenditures will be spent on the ISS under the Obama plan with an actual increase in the ISS budget up to $3 billion a year by the year 2015.

Every poll that I've conducted shows that most people interested in space travel not only want a permanent base on the Moon but also want to go there themselves once space tourism is underway.

Marcel F. Williams

There's no logical reason to send humans to an asteroid when it would be much cheaper and much more beneficial to send light sails out to capture small asteroids and bring them back to a Lagrange point so that we can extract oxygen and hydrogen from them for space depots and mass shielding for space stations and manned interplanetary vehicles.

That's real game changing technology!

Marcel F. Williams

I wish Cernan was the Administrator of NASA! Great job Neil and Gene, I guess that was a new example of "The Right Stuff".

You can't play kill the messenger this time kids.

A real mess; truly a disaster.

Neil did better by not getting into too much detail, but by simply stating that the situation requires serious public debate.

Cernan got in over his head much too quickly and lost credibility.

Both astronauts seemed genuinely confused about the difference between the Vision and Constellation. The Vision was developed extensively with a lot of input and Armstrong made a 'commercial' supporting it. Constellation was not publicly debated.

Everyone seemed to lose sight; the Constellation architecture does not close.

K Bailey was disappointing, asking only that a single Shuttle mission be added and that the remaining flights be space out over the next 2 years.

Rockefeller was the most telling and direct and to the point, saying that yes, what Armstrong had done 40 years ago was inspirational, but that he does not see spending a lot of money as a good investment unless someone can tell him how the money translates into progress.

The real people at fault here are still NASA, who cannot figure out that people are asking them to tell the truth about why what we are doing is important and worthy of the investment.

NASA's response, today as shown by Bolden, but really he is reflecting how the rest of the organization has been responding too, is, 'we really don't have a dog in this fight; we just do what we're told'. James Webb, Robert Gilruth, Hugh Dryden, von Braun; they'd all be rolling over in their graves if they knew of the lack of leadership being shown.

The most telling discussion today was by Bolden, who said he was in Israel and was briefed on the plan after he returned and just before it was made public, and by Armstrong, who said the plan needs to be debated in the open, but who then confused Constellation with the Vision and said Constellation had been openly debated, which it never was.

Probably none of this matters. The astronauts and the hearing really did not get much serious attention, so probably nothing they had to say will make much of a difference.

The most important thing for NASA and its supporters to do, is to define some strategic lines of thinking that support the plan (or a plan) and make sure NASA gets some orators and authors who can and will express these thoughts so that people understand why we want to do what we say we are going to do. Neither the Orion-super lite nor the deferral of an HLV for five years supports a logical plan. Unfortunately it appears NASA has no one who can speak and make any sense.

Once again Bolden and company has not changed one iota of their plan. It was brought out that the so-called plan was hatched in
secrecy and not given much thought. They have blinders on and can't move off their
position. Wheres Garver?... the master mind, maybe she can budge some in the right direction if they want this plan to go anywhere. And forget having rocket engs. to sort this out...we are now in the political realm and that is why we are having to untangle this mess Obama and team have started this and screwed it up royally. It's been messed up since it was unveiled and Obama, being as arrogant as Bush was, will not say his vision is flawed. And the rest of the puppets are following his lead....charge the hill boys....you first! Armstrong and Cernan know what it takes to get there and I agree with them....we will loose our position and leadership in space for some time. Lets go with what is tried and true and not someones wet dream.Also, commercial is like going to Vegas, I don't see to many people coming back from Vegas as winners. They will feed off the trough for a long time till they get something that works, maybe! I betting a 15 year gap and Obama will be gone next election and we will be stuck with this dismal solution for NASA...no thats a bet!

LOL

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/about/history/history3.html

Sen Rockefeller had me rolling on the floor with laughter. What a classic way to stump the astronuts. The hearing was classic back to school for NASA the Ares rocket and Orion is not all NASA is about. Holdren and Bolden did excellent in the start of a new adventure of exploration.

I loved the way Cernan and Armstrong looked dumbfounded. What benefit is building the rocket and going to the moon again for humans on earth? Ahhh I dunno, let me think??? Just look at the Hospitals??? my Iphone and ahh everything came from the apollo program LOL....We need Exploration ???

Armstrong and Cernan, truly courageous Americans. You go guys.

What a mess indeed.

"James Webb, Robert Gilruth, Hugh Dryden, von Braun; they'd all be rolling over in their graves if they knew of the lack of leadership being shown."

Mr. Brown, you sure have that right. There was a discussion a few days ago on another NASAWatch article about 'leadership' (or lack thereof). We saw that in spades today. I've never felt embarrassed before at seeing testimony from the NASA Administrator, but I did today. That was cringe-inducing.
How many times did he say, "I'll have to get back to you on that" with that deer-in-the-headlights look? Whether ill-prepared, uninformed, or just operating only as the mouthpiece...I don't know which, but that was pitiful.

At least Panel #2 held out hope that there are some reasonable minds trying to sort out the mess.

BTW, Where was L Garver today?

Editor's note: en route to KSC for the STS-132 launch.

To Editor

Thanks -- guess that is more important to the taxpayer than Senate testimony

This a going to make a great book some day. I just hope it doesn't turn out to be a Greek tragedy. In fact we should have Dan Brown write it! "Deception Point 2" has a nice ring to it and I believe the original helped shape Obama's early policy on NASA. The tragedy is NASA will continue to limp on under a continuing resolution until November and the elections are over then Nasa is going to get sold down the river. Whether the merchant 7 succeed long enough to be bailed out is any ones guess. There is still a lot of milestones under COTS that have to be met. We will also have to see if Elon Musk stays around after he floats his IPO and takes Spacex public.

"A plan that was invisible to so many was likely contrived by a very small group in secret"

Not that I think it was written by Mike Griffin, but that is the kind of horse shit he would say.

I watched the hearings where the plan was formed. It was not invisible. NASA was begging people to participate.

Ask NASA how many people participated on the Augustine website and watched the hearings, Keith.

Are you aware that Armstrong is a professor of aerospace engineering and has taught for decades? As a "rocket engineer" I can tell you that Cernan and Armstrong are right. Any company or individual that says they can design, build, and test a rocket capable of putting humans into orbit in 3 years is either lying or completely ignorant of the difficulties involved, or both.

I have worked as an engineer in the Utah solid rocket motor operations for thirteen years. I can tell you that all I know here disagree with The Administration's directon... and not just for self-interested reasons. We uniformly agree with the comments tendered by Neil Armstrong. May I add with respect to safety comments and questions that the Space Shuttle boosters are the only first stage propulsion system in the world that can be and has been routinely recovered after launch. This gives us the ability to improve and perfect any feature that is found to be lacking in strength or function following post-flight inspections. No other main propulsion system exists that has provided this type of health information and intellectual feedback... which all equates to the safest, best honed first stage propulsion system anywhere. This is a gem in the hand of the United States that is about to be dropped from our hand! Lets have more than one 'car' in the garage. Lets keep Shuttle for low orbit, then gradually get to the moon and use it to our advantage. Let deep space be explored but at third priority.

I agree with Falken, Cernan for NASA administrator. Out with the yes-man!

Personally, I enjoyed watching a little payback from Cernan, Armstrong, etc. after that "firehose" was received in February by Obama/Bolden/Holdren/Augustine Commission.

Bolden provided enthusiastic answers to the questions posed to him. But at times I noticed he did not answer the question directly and took too much time to answer. Senator Rockerfeller had to remind Bolden to keep his answers brief or else committee senators would not vote for what he wanted to get done.

To me, Neil and Gene did a great job. Senator Nelson helped tremendously when he answered the question on why we explore. Also, I praise Senator Rockerfeller for the fairness he showed while chairing the committee.

Finally, I'll keep on saying this again and again. We succeeded in going to the moon because after Kennedy was assasinated, LBJ followed through as a real leader should. He had the political will to keep going and provided the funds needed to get to the moon. All of this happened while during the turbulent 60s. Obama should take a lesson from this President.

Because you were brave and competent once does not mean you should be listened to and worshiped forever. We have been in low earth orbit since the early 1970s. Where were the astronauts then as spaceflight was stolen from a whole generation of Americans? We could have used their voices as NASA (with some notable exceptions)just made long term plans, always for the distant future. Both democratic and republican administrations eagerly cut NASA during both good times and bad. Then after the better part of half a century suddenly something is wrong when we try to do things differently?!? For me the issue for the astronauts is not Obama's plan, it is explaining their unforgivable decades long silence when NASA and America could have used an advocate.

Best answer for the people vs. bots question:

If the Raptor had been an “unmanned” aircraft, all six planes would have crashed. They would have been lost in mid-ocean; the wreckage (including flight recorders) might never have been recovered. Engineers would have spent months, perhaps years, trying to determine what went wrong.

Instead, pilots were able to improvise emergency procedures for a situation no one had anticipated. Human skills and courage allowed them to follow their tankers back to Hawaii and an emergency landing. Having pilots onboard saved a billion dollars worth of aircraft from a watery grave.

http://teachersinspace.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/why-humans-are-not-obsolete/

Best answer for the why explore space:

Alun Salt – Archeoastronomy

Historical materials suggest that there wasn't such sharp division between earth and sky in the ancient world. Instead there was one cosmos. Space exploration reveals that while there isn't a divine link between the heavens and the earth, it is true that what happens up there can affect what happens down here. It would be useful to know about the cosmos, rather than just be a victim of it.
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/11/the-value-of-space-exploration/

dancin in the moonlight, everybody's feelin warm and bright

I continue to be flabbergasted on the amount of attention put on Cernan and Armstrong. They had their moment of glory - 40 years ago. So they walked on the moon - an admirable and historical feat, but one that has no bearing on the Constellation discussions. What have they done since that allows them to provide "expert testimony"? Armstrong pops up every so often on various commissions; Cernan, I'm not even sure. At least Aldrin has spent the last 15-20 years actively involved and pushing new concepts in space exploration. Schweickart has been a vocal leader in the NEO community. Either of them, in my mind, have significantly more credibility as an "expert".

Are we listening to them because they are astronauts? So is Bolden; in fact he has almost more space experience than Armstrong and Cernan combined.
Bolden - 28 days (4 missions)
Cernan - 23 days (3 missions)
Armtrong - 9 days (2 missions)

This testimony should not have been about geriatric astronauts. Why not bring in CEOs from industry (both pro and against Obama's plan)? How about NASA center directors? People who have studied space policy and history? Engineers who can testify pro and con regarding Ares I? Astronauts with more recent space experience? The "young people" everyone supposedly wants to inspire with the space program?

Maybe Obama's plan is right, maybe it is a mistake - but the testimony from the two astronauts to the Senate is the blind leading the blind.

"Constellation was not publicly debated"

I seem to recall some public discussion before it was approved. There was much more debate on Constellation than on Obama's new plan, especially since very few knew about it before it was announced.

"I watched the hearings where the plan was formed. It was not invisible. NASA was begging people to participate."

Sorry but the Augustine commission was not the NASA process by which it's proposed FY 2011 budget submittal was developed. At best it was a high level look at options. Given senior NASA management's Deer in the Headlights look when this got rolled out clearly shows that the Obama plan was not what was recommended by the NASA management and at the very least was developed by a small cadre at the top without consultation with the AA's and center directors. So this plan was put together by a small group in secret.

"Any company or individual that says they can design, build, and test a rocket capable of putting humans into orbit in 3 years is either lying or completely ignorant of the difficulties involved, or both."

Completely true and it happens all the time in all parts of the government. I still don't understand why people in the government are so eager to believe anything people with an agenda tell them instead of doing their due diligence. We are hardly surprised when a used car salesman uses shades of truth or outright lies to get us to buy his product but when it is a government employee advocating for his program or a contrctor trying to win billions of dollars of taxpayers money we automatically assume he is truthful. Used to see the same thing from contractors all the time when I was doing acquistion in the Navy. Luckily we had experienced aquistion professionals who could and did wave the BS flag when they saw it.

Thanks for the reply.

Again, all due respect, but it seems the media and congress are listening to them as former astronauts, and not engineers. Carlos (see above) has noted the same thing.

There is something missing here, like engineering logic.

You don't bring in center directors or active astronauts because you won't get an honest answer from them. They work for the administrator and are duty bound to support his program. If they can't then they should resign and then advocate against the plan but non will because keeping their jobs is more important (especially astronauts who don't want to jeopardize at all a chance to get what few flights remain). So having the administrator testify will get you the same answers. Anybody independent of NASA of a techncial nature isn't wanted by the committee because most people on the committee aren't smart enough to understand the details (one Senator didn't even have a clue about the COTS cargo program and the difference between it and commercial crew) and actually most don't care. Remember that public Congressional committee meetings are public theater for media consumption, not working meetings to actually solve a problem. The job of advocating and convincing Senators happens in private in their offices. Witness's for the public hearings are chosen for their ability to attract media interest, either through their public persona, the controversial nature of their ideas, or their role as the bad guy for Congress to beat up on.

I'm not going to dismiss Bolden's accomplishments but Armstrong and Cernan were involved more in the development and testing phases of a space vehicle than Bolden and are, in my opinion, more qualified to speak on the difficulties involved. Their time in orbit is irrelevant.

Constellation architecture was WAY too ambitious up front in that it was all based on the premise that we'd go to the moon to stay. Since then its been found building a lunar base is WAY too expensive to do. The architecture should've taken much smaller steps in the early years.....when the Cx program was stood up in 2004-2005 the #1 priority should've been having a cheaper than Shuttle vehicle ready to go to ISS (i.e., least design-intense), not upfront work to eventually fulfill some "living on the moon" pipe dream 20 years away.....by now "bridging the gap" would be a non-issue and we could have a real conversation/trade studies about exploration architecture BLEO.

I think Armstrong made some good points, but I think he was confused between the Vision and ESAS/Constellation.

President Bush proposed the Vision:
(1) develop CEV
(2) finish ISS,
(2) establish a permanent presence on the moon, and
(3) venture onward toward Mars.

Armstrong: ESAS was completed and a high level panel and independent review team vetted the ESAS conclusions.

Actually, the Aldridge Presidential Commission on Implementation developed the 'Journey' report after the Vision was announced and a year before the ESAS and Constellation.

The O'Keefe/Steidle plan coming out of the Vision announcement was to first develop a flying mini-Shuttle as the CEV. Lunar Architecture teams developed plans for permanent work on the moon.

It was not until Griffin came in as Administrator that he commissioned the ESAS, which was a 60 day study, which resulted in Griffin's announcement of 'Apollo on Steroids' which became Constellation. Griffin terminated the AA and the work on the fly-back CEV to develop the new Orion-Ares plan. That occurred about 18 months after the Vision and a year after the Aldridge commission.

Armstrong: …that vision was analyzed, debated, and improved upon within the Congress for nearly two years.

I don't think so; for the first 18 months the plan was for a fly-back CEV aimed at ISS support, and with architecture teams looking at requirements for permanent human presence.

Only after the first 18 months were the architecture teams disbanded, ESAS commissioned, and the plan changed to an Orion ballistic capsule boosted by SRB. The Orion was repeatedly downsized and the SRB was repeatedly upsized in order to try and make the system work.

Armstrong: Critics say Constellation would be very costly...“unexecutable‟, primarily because it has been under funded.

I read the Augustine Commission to say that Constellation was unexecutable because development and operation were both too costly, and well above the dollar amounts that had been budgeted, let alone appropriated.

Armstrong: The Shuttle should continue to carry cargo, and continue to perform the many other services it now provides...including serving as a crew taxi...

Extrapolate this to mean Shuttle should not be terminated.

Armstrong: Orion would be necessary if an Orbiter or Soyuz was not available.

Extrapolated to mean the proposed Orion emergency return vehicle is unnecessary.

Armstrong: As an emergency return vehicle, a near ballistic shape such as Orion would be inferior to a configuration with higher aerodynamic performance.

Armstrong: Orion's...utility would not seem to compare well with the Soyuz.

Armstrong: The time and cost of Orion development would be a very expensive project with limited usefulness.

Armstrong on Heavy Lift: a rocket derived from Shuttle could be useful, and far less expensive and could b e produced much more quickly and does not require five years of study.

Armstrong on Shuttle termination (also Constellation): will result in widespread breakup of design, manufacturing, test and operating teams that will be expensive and time consuming to reassemble when they are once again needed.

I put a good deal more credence into Armstrong's comments than in Bolden's, Cernan's or most other astronauts simply because Armstrong worked as a development engineer and engineering test pilot on several NASA rocket plane development projects, and particularly on X-15 and Apollo. Armstrong's work was the basis for fly-by-wire control systems and for modern simulation systems.

> which all equates to the safest, best honed first stage propulsion system anywhere.

I'm not sure you're qualified to make that judgement. What about the Soyuz boosters? Did one of those fail? Cause a loss of crew?

"Are we listening to them because they are astronauts? So is Bolden; in fact he has almost more space experience than Armstrong and Cernan combined."

Well you can slant this whichever way you want. Let's compare time spent piloting a lunar lander in lunar orbit. How do Armstrong and Cernan's time compare with Bolden? Huh?

Bolden only traveled a few hundred kilometers to the space station (tourist have been there).

Armstrong and Cernan traveled four hundred thousand kilometers to another world. Big difference!

Marcel F. Williams

ex_navy replied to comment from kosmoe | May 13, 2010 11:40 AM | Reply

"Any company or individual that says they can design, build, and test a rocket capable of putting humans into orbit in 3 years is either lying or completely ignorant of the difficulties involved, or both."

Completely true and it happens all the time in all parts of the government....

....

that might be accurate today. But it was not always so. Big projects today take forever...but thats just because how things are done today are screwed up. Projects which stretch the state of the art use not to take that long.

The F-35 for instance has gone decades...but the F-4 Phantom went from an in house company design to the Fleet in 5-7 years depending on how one counts...

In space...Gemini went from designation in 1962 to flight in 65 and pretty routine ops launching more or less every two months. That included man rating the Titan II and working up Atlas/Agena target systems.

I dont see why given adequate funding (far less then has been spent on Ares 1/Orion) that it would not be possible to essentially redo Gemini in 3-5 years.

Robert G. Oler

Bolden knew about the plan beforehand, or some semblance thereof, he sure did talk about it while he was in Israel.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/135739

I think Gene Cernan (and Armstrong) had it right especially when Gene said: that spacecraft entrepreneurs “do not yet know what they don’t know.”

Also for an alternative view about a new use for both the Shuttle and ISS check Chris Kraft's ideas:

http://tinyurl.com/28voog7

Is it time to call all this STAR WARS and to claim Neil as the Yoda or Obie-Won? Or should we designate him Yogurt and call the whole mess Space Balls?

There is a lesson to be learned from the SMD and JPL R&D. The goals of the Mars Program is a great enabler of technology. It is the driver of many new and needed technology for future missions to Mars. I remain in agreement with Obama's Administration that Constellation is a debacle - can't we learn from the Shuttle experience? However, while it is not practical to set a date such as "before this decade is out" to send humans to Mars, like with activities at JPL, make Mars the driver, set a mission to Mars as the goal and create a list of enabling technologies.

Well, this has been done to some degree but given this emphasis, Obama-Bolden-Garver will quiet skeptics and critics. Furthermore, it needs to be emphasized that near-term new technologies are going to change the flight plan to Mars dramatically. The Mission profile must remain unresolved for now and enabling technologies pursued to create the formula that will send humans to Mars with reasonable risk and safety levels and cost that the public can accept.

No Carlos, we're not listening to them just because they are astronauts. The amount of experience that Armstrong brings to the table across the width and breadth of designing, testing, and corporate management makes Charlie look like a wet behind the ears freshout. If you haven't seen it, you should start here and then delve into the rest of his history from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Armstrong

"I dont see why given adequate funding (far less then has been spent on Ares 1/Orion) that it would not be possible to essentially redo Gemini in 3-5 years."

So you don't mind if the commercial launch vehicle was unsafe? I suspect that the Gemini's reliability was significantly lower than the shuttle's. Orion/Constellation was forced to be safer than the shuttle.

I'm sure that a commercial company could make a cheap spacecraft. I'm also sure it's reliability and safety would suffer. Safety costs money and takes time. Can't have it both ways.

Gemini was done in 3 years with a fairly low budget of about $1 billion (about $5b in today's money). Gemini started in Dec 1961 - Jan 62. The first (unmanned) flight was in mid-1964 and the first manned flight in early 1965.

And Dr. Griffin announced at the outset of Constellation that 'Orion could be done in about the same time frame as Gemini, since it really only needed to do about the same as a Gemini, and he said, in 1962 we did not know how to do the job; we did not know what we did not know.

In 2005 we do know how'.

Actually, what was most ammusing was Jay Rockefeller's incoherent rambling about Sir Issaic Newton visiting Johns Hopkins in the 1870s!

Rockefeller was quite mistaken. He was unaware that Newton's basic contributions were in physics, optics, and math. Not medicine. And a minor detail...Newton died in 1727.

And so this guy who is doesn't understand Newtoniam mechanics thinks that he is qualified to chart the trajectory of NASA...

So you don't mind if the commercial launch vehicle was unsafe? I suspect that the Gemini's reliability was significantly lower than the shuttle's. Orion/Constellation was forced to be safer than the shuttle.

By who? Who set the requirements for the launch vehicle? Were those requirements realistic?

The Saturn 1B launch vehicle that never had a failure only had a stated reliability of 0.88 at the end of its program and relied heavily on the escape system to get its numbers past 0.95.

The Saturn V was at about the same number. If we are going to listen to the Apollo era people, then are we also willing to take the same level of risk that they lived with?

Excellent comment. My wife and I were watching Rock rambling on and we were frankly amazed at his ignorance. I'm wondering if he had been drinking before the hearing because he got all fussed up before the second panel could be seated.

What one blogger said was so on target, that by examining each set of boosters after shuttle launch, one has an invaluable insight as to it's condition and improvements can be made (if allowed to) I have always wondered since ths 2 shuttle disasters, (related equiptment failures) how close we came to disasters during Apollo,since we could never look at the Saturn 5 stages, we'll never know

Fred PLEASE correct me if I am wrong but is it not correct that:
- the total costs of recovery, shipping, dismemberment, reassembly, refilling, testing and re shipping of the SRBs is actually more expensive than just using a disposable equivalent.
- the POR was moving to disposable composite 5 segs anyway.

Marcel if you don't bother to respond to criticisms on other threads, no-one will engage you with your same old schemes.

However comparing a 4 time Shuttle pilot and two time Shuttle commander as a Space tourist is quite simply beyond the pale. Let alone his other achievements.

"Bolden only traveled a few hundred kilometers to the space station (tourist have been there). "

Yes Bolden was the Commander of the first shuttle to EVER dock with a space station (MIR) and a Russian one at that!

I would suggest an immediate retraction of your libel. I would also suggest other things but Keith would probably ban me for life! Even so I was tempted. VERY tempted!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_F._Bolden,_Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-60

STS-60 was not a Mir docking mission; it was a rendezvous mission. They also carried Wake SHIeld, which on this mission was pretty much a failure and could not be deployed, and they carried the second Spacehab.

Dennis WIngo - 'Gemini's reliability was significantly lower than the shuttle's.'

Maybe, but I suspect not. Gemini was a pretty simple vehicle and much smaller by comparison with Shuttle. I suspect there is a lot more that could go wrong on Shuttle. Just the payload Shuttle carries in its bay is 5 - 7 times the weight and 3-4 times the physical size of a Gemini capsule.

"By who? Who set the requirements for the launch vehicle?"

The original ESAS chart (dated September 19, 2005) states as goals for Constellation:

Significantly safer and more reliable (than Apollo)

Higher ascent crew safety than the Space Shuttle
- 1 in 2,000 for the Crew Launch Vehicle
- 1 in 220 for the Space Shuttle

I don't know what the current numbers are, but they did have something they were striving for. I don't recall ever seeing any reliability requirements for the Dragon or any commercial vehicles. And yet, they proclaim 3 year program completion and low $ per launch.

So you don't mind if the commercial launch vehicle was unsafe? I suspect that the Gemini's reliability was significantly lower than the shuttle's. Orion/Constellation was forced to be safer than the shuttle.

do you consider Gemini was unsafe? I dont know how to respond to your comment that Gemini's reliability was significantly lower than the shuttles...Gemini never lost a crew in the vehicle (Gemini had some crew deaths but they were aviation related) the shuttle has killed 14 and lost two vehicles.

Gemini had ejection seats which were better then what the shuttle had and its rocket (the Titan) had (in its military guise) a pretty good flight rate.

At any event we should be willing to accept Apollo era risk. I dont view Ares as any safer then Shuttle, it is a paper rocket

Robert G. Oler

Higher ascent crew safety than the Space Shuttle
- 1 in 2,000 for the Crew Launch Vehicle
- 1 in 220 for the Space Shuttle

Both of these numbers are pure fantasy. I remember before Columbia that the number for the Shuttle was put at 1 in 453. What did they do, divide by 2?

The reason that I posted that number was to draw a contrast between the real numbers as put together by the engineers in the Apollo era and the viewgraph engineering of today.

The cost to achieve a 1 in 2000 number in practice would be astronomical and that reliability can only be seen in retrospect, not as a paper requirement to be met.

It's biased and unfair for Mr. Cernan to assert that we "don't know what we don't know."

First of all, I don't know what research Mr. Cernan has done on commercial companies but to my knowledge he has not visited any of our facilities at SpaceX or other companies. Nothing is mentioned on how he came to his determination of our technical capabilities. I can say that SpaceX is doing everything we can to learn from almost 50 years of American spaceflight experience. We're not working in a vacuum. There are historical accounts, published papers, and our own greybeard employees to lend guidance. Additionally NASA provides the requirements for docking with ISS and man-rating a launch vehicle. So essentially our knowledge base is as extensive as NASA's.

Anyone can insinuate that there are "black swans" within a program. To be fair that assertion should be applied to Constellation as well, or any other program for that matter. Simply implying that only commercial companies will fall victim to unforeseen mishaps is misleading.

Chris L,
Well said. I'm glad you posted your comments.

LOL
Actually, what was most ammusing was Jay Rockefeller's incoherent rambling about Sir Issaic Newton visiting Johns Hopkins in the 1870s!

Rockefeller was quite mistaken. He was unaware that Newton's basic contributions were in physics
, optics, and math. Not medicine. And a minor detail...Newton died in 1727.

And so this guy who is doesn't understand Newtoniam mechanics thinks that he is qualified to chart the trajectory of NASA...

I really liked the moment Sen Rockefeller noted Sen Vitter can do as he pleases when he becomes chairman on the committee

I'm very sure Sen Rockefeller knew very well what he was saying.
have a wonderful CxP day

I am sure Obama has a better feel for SpaceX's technical capabilities than Gene Cernan, since he walked around their launch site and Cernan didn't.

They may not be attainable, but at least they are there. I ask again, how reliable does SpaceX claim the Dragon will be? They have no design, no experience, but yet make big claims. And for this, Constellation was canceled.

And the Gemini escape system consisted of ejection seats. One vehicle went out of control in orbit and numerous (most/all?) craft suffered various systems problems and failures. If you include the Agena docking attempts, there were numerous failures there as well.

I believe that SpaceX has proposed no crew control of the vehicle. Any failure would likely terminate the mission or could cause a loss of crew.

"At any event we should be willing to accept Apollo era risk."

Unfortunately, after each shuttle failure there has been an outcry that spaceflight should be safer. The same restrictions that applied to Constellation should apply to the commercial world. I'm fine with taking chances, but those favoring the COTS are glossing over the significant shortcomings in this commercial approach.

While going through my test pilot school classes and Defense Acquistion Workforce classes we were taught that based on the data in the DOD lessons learend database from thousands of programs over 40 years that the average time for a major aerospace program from program start to Initial Operational Capability was 15 years. That's not opinion that's reality. Perhaps Gemini was one of the outlier, six sigma programs that was luckily able to be finshed more quickly although at significant risk. Point is you can't count on that happening everytime. Prudent managment says it will take longer and you can look like Scotty if you bring it in earlier. If you try to push it faster then you drive costs through the roof because of re-design required by poor requirements, concurrent engineering, and in adequate testing.

So no, I don't think given adequate funding that 3-5 years is realistic for a from scratch program unless you gut the testing requirements.

You do know that there is a whole field of engineering called reliability engineering that is mature and has methodoligies for determining the reliability of hardware and software designs? I know because I studied it in graduate school. The methodologies are quite conservative (ISS system I work with is 4 times more reliable then predicted)and are quite capable of showing if a design is more reliable or not then other designs. So saying ARES is a paper rocket really doesn't support your arguement that it isn't any safer then Shuttle.

No, it's not unfair. In fact much of what I do for ISS is about protecting for what I don't know. All of our flight rules, procedures, the mindset we train our flight controllers to have, how we look at system capabilities and anomalies is all based on the knowledge that we don't have perfect knowlege of the system and that we are probably not going to know what the next failure is and we have to protect for that. In fact every ISS anomaly in my system has been an unanticipated problem but because of how we approach operations they were all handled with no long term impact to the crew or ISS.

I am curious. Can you tell how many former flight directors or flight controllers who have previously worked HSF are currently employed by Space X?

I'm not certain which programs you studied, but 15 years to IOC was never the timeframe for any earlier successful human space flight programs.

Mercury - 1958 to 1961 3.5 yrs
Gemini - 1962 to 1965 3 yrs
Apollo - 1961 to 1966 5 yrs
Skylab - 1969 to 1973 4 yrs
Shuttle - 1972 to 1981 9 yrs
Spacehab - 1988 to 1993 5 yrs
Mir - 1993 to 1996 3 yrs

Only Apollo had a basically unlimited budget.

Even ISS went through political gyrations and not so much technical, and was delayed to reach from 1984 to 1998, or 14 years.

Your fifteen year time frame is not consistent with past successful human space programs.

And I forgot one, X-15, 1954 to 1959, 5 years.

Time is money, and the longer it takes to field the vehicle, the more costly the program gets and the more opportunity for political convolutions. If you start with well established and well developed requirements, and organize to make the follow-on jobs easily divisible to be carried out under a single task, then the job becomes much easier to do on a reasonably expedited timeframe.

That has been the problem with Constellation from the start. We started with one set of requirements, then had new and different requirements superimposed, and the requirements have been in flux ever since. We continue even now hearing arguments between the launch vehicle, that the capsule is too heavy, and the capsule people, that the launch vehicle performance is inadequate. Its the poorly established and poorly managed requirements process that got the program into a such a contest.

In the meantime, a full discussion of the merits of a capsule approach vs a fly-back vehicle, or of a LM/Altair approach vs a modular surface build-up approach, have never been discussed. Griffin, after all, already knew the answer. He just failed to communicate it to anyone else in a believable manner, apparently.

The Obama plan is no better, going off on new tangents of Orion rescue capsules, deferring heavy lift, and a program of advanced technology development that is any more than a handful of words on a page.

SpaceX will attempt to recover the F9 first stage.It is tail heavy and I do not think it can be towed back like your SRBs.I have seen one image of the recovery team and equipment I did not see a picture of a crane and barge.F9 is going to float upright.The crane will pick it up and set it on the barge.The crane then will set it on a truck.I hope they have a marine company on call.Wonder how much damage will be done to the engine nozzles?

So no, I don't think given adequate funding that 3-5 years is realistic for a from scratch program unless you gut the testing requirements.

a few years before he died in the crash Chuck Sewell spoke at the SETP on how the F-14 went from from contract award to IOC in 22 months...and while I am paraphrasing his comments were that X planes develop technologies while operational programs integrate them. The instant an operational program tried to invent technology it was doomed.

One of the reasons NASA's programs since Apollo get into trouble and cost way to much (and take far to long) is that they are X projects masquerading as operational systems.

What SpaceX is doing is taking known technology and integrating it into an operational system using fairly proven methods that work everywhere else that type of effort is done.

I have no real doubt that just as the Tomcat could do what it did SpaceX can do it as well. The technology for low earth orbit human systems is well in hand, there really is nothing unique or game changing in terms of their rockets.

They will have teething problems (the Dreamliner is having that) but the concept of operational systems will in my view prevent things like flying with known malfunctions that eventually destroyed two orbiters.

Robert G. Oler

Unfortunately, after each shuttle failure there has been an outcry that spaceflight should be safer.

probably because what NASA did that allowed two orbiters to be lost (ie flying with a known malfunction) would be considered "unsafe" in any transportation system known to man.

It is illustrative to remember that what caused the loss of Challenger and Columbia was not something "that was unknown". The respective malfunctions were quite well known, understood even, and NASA HSF elected to continue flying with them.

Robert G. Oler

Chances are that any space accident will involve something that was known before. This goes for commercial vehicles as well. Spaceflight involves risk and if you stop flying until all risks are eliminated, you'll never fly. The key thing is to know how likely a particular risk is to cause a loss of crew. This is easy in hindsight.

At the May 12th senate hearing, does anyone know the identity of the staffer that was sitting behind Kay Bailey Hutchison? He looks very familiar.

Chances are that any space accident will involve something that was known before.

I dont disagree. almost all accidents have a history that when seen in the light of the accident "obviously" lead to it.

The question that should be asked is "how obvious was the trail before the accident?" I would argue that the trail to Challenger and Columbia was so obvious that even a blind person could see it. Indeed NASA management was TALKING about the incident well before it happened...they just chose to believe that the incident was unlikely.

That kind of accident, where a known flaw was ignored will doom any commercial operator. NASA barely (and should not have in my view) skated by it...

If something happens that was not so obvious, I am thinking here of a Apollo 1 type event or say a Pan Am Kenner LA crash...well not so much.

Robert G. Oler

Jeff Bingham was the staffer in view just behind Hutchison. Jeff, Hutchison, and NASA staffer Mark Uran are the brains behind the ISS Laboratory activity.

Thank you for the correction. Since you are more of an expert on these matters is it therefore true that:
"Bolden only traveled a few hundred kilometers to the space station (tourist have been there). "
Would you agree with his implication that a voyage to the Moon is in some way superior to the 4 Shuttle missions that Admin. Bolden flew/ piloted/commanded. Would you equate Gen Bolden to Dennis Tito?
I would hope not!

I never commented on Bolden's abilities versus anyone else. But since you asked:

In the words of the former head of the flight crew office, any astronaut can be selected for any mission, and one astronaut will perform as well as the next. (BTW those of us who have worked with and trained astronauts know nothing could be further from the truth)

As an astronaut, Shuttle is a complex vehicle and Bolden learned how to fly it ad he did fine as a pilot. But Shuttle is a highly automated vehicle requiring little real expertise in 'pilotage and flight techniques'.

Bolden is a General and he should be able to lead and as Administrator, Bolden should have been ordering studies, getting thorough briefings and Bolden should have been THE ONE making the recommendations to the President on behalf of NASA.

Armstrong is a first rate engineer and space systems developer, experience that Bolden does not have. Armstrong has about as much experience in these areas as anyone and he gained that experience during a very dynamic time in aviation and the space program. As a pilot, Armstrong has flown them all, including the X-15 rocket plane, the Gemini, Gemini-Agena, and Apollo along with a myriad of other aircraft. The landing on the moon and the other air and spacecraft he flew were not automated and did require serious piloting skills.

The points Armstrong posed in the Congressional briefing are all good ones and every one of them needs to be answered before the nation moves forward. Armstrong has a good theoretical background in addition to his practical hands-on background, and he has experience in academics in which the goal is to research and develop questions and voice opinions as well as to communicate knowledge.

I am happy Armstrong took the time and was concerned enough to get involved. I am concerned if Griffin tried to influence Armstrong's testimony, and I am concerned that Armstrong did not seem to know the difference between the Vision and Constellation. I know, since I was part of the team working it, that the Vision we were working towards was something entirely different than the Constellation Program that Griffin came up with.

I have concerns, myself, with the Obama plan and so far I have not heard Charlie Bolden, who is a trusted friend, give answers to any of the questions that Armstrong has raised. This includes the lack of need for the Orion, the capability, usefulness and shortsightedness of prematurely dismantling Shuttle, and the unnecessary deferral of the HLV. These are all significant risks to the US space program, and they can all wind up costing the nation expertise and tens of billions of dollars, and yet the plan seems to have been come up with almost casually.

All of Armstrong's questions are good ones and they all need to be answered.

If Bolden is not advising the President, then who is? Whoever it is, how are they coming up with such lame advice?

John Holdren needs to especially be watched as he has no real world or practical experience in space (or in anything else) as far as I can tell from his resume. He seems to have been in academics his entire career and has never worked in aerospace. I was just listening to a PBS program about the new Supreme Court nominee and they were describing the Harvard educated academics that Obama is fond of, but who have no practical experience. That describes Holdren.

The President is not well liked for his policy and planning decisions in general (beyond the space program) based on a poll this week, and if he is taking the advice of people who do not have the appropriate qualifications or who have not been confirmed by Congress, and if Obama is taking the advice of others instead of Bolden, then the President is making a strategic and political error.

In Neil Armstrong's words, Obama is not being well advised. I think that expresses exactly what the problem is.

So you are saying (or rather implying) that he *is* a tourist. Just wanted to be clear! Since Marcel is conspicuous by his absence.

"Bolden is a General and he should be able to lead and as Administrator, Bolden should have been ordering studies, getting thorough briefings and Bolden should have been THE ONE making the recommendations to the President on behalf of NASA."
Studies like this one:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/05/ambitious-ares-test-flight-plan-hlv-demonstrations/
or this one
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/bolden-review-hlv-friday-sidemount-doubt-in-linessme-boost/
or even this one
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/manned-mission-to-construct-huge-geo-and-deep-space-telescopes-proposed/
One hopes he is being briefed. However in the toxic environment that seems to be brewing I think he would be well advised to get everything in writing!
Finally the AC on HSF circumvented the normal procedures and as you have heard on any number of occasions the usual Budgetary rollout did not take place.

However to return to your favorite topic I wonder if you could answer one or two questions:
- when did Neil join Thiokol
- what positions on the board did he have
- what were his stock options
- when did he leave
- when did he disinvest himself of these stock options so as to become a fair and impartial witness
Since Neil has (at last) entered into this fray these questions should be answered too. Don't you think?

brobof-

On NASAWatch and other blogs you seem adamant about claiming that everyone thinks of Bolden as nothing more than a 'tourist'. But from what I can tell you are the one who originated this idea and keeps trying to spread it further.

The space tourists who have been riding with the Russians are far wealthier than you or I, and they are very intelligent and all of them were first rate designers, developers and engineers. I see nothing wrong with that kind of success; its too bad the space program doe snot have more of them. Why do you keep trying to malign them.

Now of course you are also trying to malign Armstrong.

Maybe you need to get a life.

Actually I would put the whole F-14 program at about 12 years, from 1961 when the TFX program that the F-14 was based on and the AWG 9/Phoenix missile system were first started and studied to 1973 when IOC was declared and matches up with the program description used in the DOD lessons learned.

Futhermore modern systems take longer to develop because of their extensive software and the time it takes to adequately test and fix it. Reagrding SPace X note that their program has already been in development for 7 years so they are hardly a new from scratch program that I was citing and yes I think they could create a manned vehicle in about 5 years. But Blue Horizons or Orbital, no way.

To the contrary Libby http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/05/hearing-reactio.html#comment-33960 refers. If you care to re-read the comment that you so graciously corrected, you will note that it alludes to Marcel's http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/05/hearing-reactio.html#comment-33940 comment where HE 'puts down' Bolden. (I think?)
I am merely defending Bolden's record!

And I am not maligning Armstrong, merely using a little sarcasm to point out that his testimony _may_ be suspect. However my comment clearly states an expectation of disinvestment. As would any humanist!

Putting the nature of any human being who would work for, let alone profit from, a company that relies on killing people aside for one moment; where I would 'malign' Armstrong is in his reclusiveness. From 1969 to date he should have been the strongest proponent ever for HSF. And where was he in 2005 when all this kicked off?

I did have a life but I lost it on the Interwebs :)Perhaps, if you have the time, you could help me look for it!

"And where was Armstrong in 2005 when all this kicked off?"

Here was Armstrong's 2005-06 work in support of the Vision:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fCf-i4Nnw8

Read First Man, by James Hansen. Armstrong had never been reclusive. He has just chosen the activities who chooses to support, very carefully.