Impact Of Space Policy Changes Becoming Clear

Congress, pony up you cheapskate political posturing indecisive inneffectual mess. Time to PAY for what we task NASA to do for a change!

Shuttle, extend it.

Constellation, mend it don't end it, use some of those damn good ideas out there.

Commercial, supporting role not the star of the show.

Obama, just stay out of the way and make pretty speeches.

If Kennedy is going to have a reduced role in launch activities why is the Obama administration pouring millions of dollars into Kennedy to develop the so called 21 century spaceport?

Seems to me it wouldn't make much sense for a commercial entity not to take advantage of the facilities and support structure at KSC for launches. Recreating the launch pads, infrastructure, and logistics system elsewhere would or should be prohibitively expensive. Add to that possible tax and other incentives that might be offered by the Florida state government and I think KSC has a lock on that launch business.

If the NASA
can stay out of commercial use of KSC facilities than it may make sense for the Merchant 7 to use this existing facilities.

However, if one looks to the robotic side of the house, the Launch Services Program adds 10's of Millions to the cost of a commercial launch vehicle. They are just doing their job via NASA requirements. The impact is , of course, more money needed by SMD for launch vehicles.

It will take a partnership between the Florida State Government and NASA to reduce the federal oversight on the Merchant 7 to keep costs down.

Time will tell of course.

If I'm Elon Mush though, from what I am learning of my dealings with the Air Force and CCAFS regarding Falcon 9, I find some other place to launch my rockets....like a remote private island in the Bahamas...that keeps me away from the cost drivers of using federally owned facilities.

I am so lost! I am so unsure who is right and wrong. It has become obvious that there is a huge void in leadership with both the President and Congress. This has been going on for a long time and before Obama took office. Sadly, little has changed. I fear that when the last shuttle goes away so does the hope of space exploration. Trying not to be negative but I don't see the private sector catching up for a while.

"Impact Of Space Policy Changes Becoming Clear"

Say what? Nobody knows WTF is going on, or is going to happen, and the impact of the changes is becoming clear? Or did the headline just mean that the magnitude of the likely changes is becoming clear (without any clarity as to what those changes will actually be)?

If people want to talk about the impact of space policy changes, let's talk about the recent successful test of the X-51A (a scramjet demonstration) by the Air Force. This test, combined with another recent successful test of the X-37B (unmanned orbital shuttle) has given me real pause for thought. I believe these kinds of tests should be the bread-and-butter of a NASA focused on its core mission. If the Obama administration's policy changes can get NASA back to these kinds of X-class projects that NASA ditched (at least in the case of the X-37B), I would support that.

I contend that maybe it's time to step back from grand visions that seem to lead the nation to the great nowhere of contentious stalemate, and instead start focusing on visionary technology demonstrations of a smaller class with rewards uniquely their own.

CessnaDriver - I've never heard it summed up more perfectly.

Extend the shuttle a mission or two to shorten the gap.

Fix Constellation's problems don't end the whole program, (at a waste of $9 billion spent and another $5 billion to break contracts#.

Why does it have to be either the USA/ULA types or NewSpace companies? Why NOT a marriage of the two? Excluding experience for enthusiam or vice versa, #as you would do by cutting out either side# just does not make any sense.

As for the president staying out, all I have to say is he was against the program, then pledged to support it, #twice) and then he cancelled not only the lunar program - but everything.

Again CessnaDriver, your statement was simple, accurate and much-needed.

Keep the shuttle going until there is a replacement ready to take astronauts safely into orbit.

And use the shuttle to deploy and assemble some of the relatively cheap Bigelow inflatable space stations so that America can prepare for the new commercial space age of space tourism. NASA could even lease out such a space station to private companies testing their new vehicles or transporting tourist into space.

Marcel F. Williams

Right now everything looks like absolute chaos.
The program of record is being torn apart by the presidents men and the new direction is apparently "say whatever it takes to get people aboard". We've gone from commercial only to lifeboat, asteroid missions, and circum-lunar in the span of a few weeks. I'm having a hard time believing they'll stick to all the promises being made.
But that is flexible path for you.

The Air Force at present has three things NASA doesn't: A direction, a mission, and a budget.

If I was a betting man, I'd wager the future of manned spaceflight more exists with the military than with any current political plan.

People think that KSC is the only game in town. It's not.

The European spaceport in French Guiana will soon be launching Soyuz spacecraft with cosmonauts (as early as 2010), and I see no reason why a US commercial human spaceflight launch could not do the same if the price is better than Florida based facilities.

There really is no way to "fix" Constellation. To many bad decisions and water down the road and to much entrenched bureaucracy at NASA make it almost impossible. No manager would want to tackle that.

Constellation went off track when the decisions on a booster were made not by engineering but by politics. With the first stage underperforming that made for a large second stage and when the SSME could not easily be made "airlightable" that meant that the J2 (or something like it) had to perform at levels way beyond its "growth" margin.

We have no real idea of the problems with the five segment booster but even so...at best it underperforms.

Unless those things are fixed the cost to fly Ares 1 is astronomical. It is that simple.

Next is the management structure. Someone would have to come in and tackle a new design AND try and clean out the deadwood installed by Hanley and the rest of the folks to come up with a lean, small efficient team...not this bloated megalith that exist now.

A far simpler way is to simple trash the entire thing. There is no more money to pay for it unless everything else in the NASA budget is gutted...and then we are left with a turkey rocket that is far more expensive to operate then Delta/Atlas not to mention Falcon 9 when it settles down (ok "when and if").

In the end what continuing Ares 1 does is make the agency look foolish in about 8 years (when it finally flies).

The USAF/rest of the government/private industry will be flying vehicles that are getting cheaper to operate; they might be on the verge (for far less money) in testing some reusable systems...and NASA...will be flying the last of shuttle hardware that is now well 40-50 years old.

Bad Plan

Robert G. Oler

There are lots of reasons what you suggest should not be done, but the reason it cannot be done is that the nation is out of money and to do what you suggest requires the NASA budget climb a LOT and that is wrong to do; when it is deficit spending.

If we are going to spend a lot of money NOW we should do it to help people who are "going under" due to bad decisions made in Washington. Not on space projects which have no value for the cost.

Robert G. Oler

"Constellation went off track when the decisions on a booster were made not by engineering but by politics"

... so, redesign Constellation without a booster, maybe with RS-68. Problem solved. Instead you are throwing the baby with the bad water.

I guess this is how the plane ride went with buzz and the president..

Obama: Its an honor to meet you tell me what was the moon like?
Buzz: yeah yeah moon blah blah blah been there done that Mr.President
Obama: So it wasn't such a big deal?
Buzz: ( laughs) Mr.President , I have already been to the moon why should anyone else go?
Obama: I see your point. So what do you think of my new plan?
Buzz: As long as it doesn't involve the moon , I mean seriously what else could we possibly learn by going there?
Obama: Well I know its vague and it has no real destination but I think If I spin it right everyone will go for it.
Buzz: Well as long as it kills this whole moon business.
Obama: Consider it done buzz.

Now I know this is fictional and probably is nowhere close to what happened or took place as it were. But honestly that's how it looked and sounded at the time of the speech. Oh and I live near KSC I'm still waiting to hear about these new jobs that are supposed to be made. All I'm hearing is grumbling of lay offs and cut backs. Now we are coming to place in US human space flight when LEO isn't even the destination ? Are you kidding me? Know why some people get on the conspiracy moon theory band wagon? Because NASA hasn't come close to accomplishing anything as Cool and Fantastic in over 40 years.I'm reminded of JFK's Speech " We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard". Well in the last 40 years its not that NASA couldn't do "the other things" they just didn't.Mired in a convoluted sea of indecision and political wrangling and budget constraints I'm honestly surprised they kept the shuttle going so long.I'm no Obama basher by any means. I am a NO DESTINATION NO CLEAR MANDATE basher. Hell I voted for the guy. Every Administration since they canceled Apollo 18 and 19 has used NASA as it whipping post when it comes to budget cuts that is the plain truth. So to blame just this administration has no validity I understand that , but I don't like what I'm seeing.When I was a kid going to the moon was within the realm of possibility . Now to hear the President of the United States tell today's kids its not. Breaks my heart as an American , a resident of Florida and a parent all at the same time.

Damn the Gravity!

Since Shuttle was born, every NASA Human Space Flight X program to replace Shuttle has gone no where. Just ask our friends at MSFC.

Why? Because NASA has NEVER had the necessary funding it needed to execute a methodical replacement plan for the shuttle, i.e. distinguishing technologies, advancing them, prototyping, testing and failing, go back and fix it, etc. etc. etc.

Why? Because 'mission' needs always trumped "R&D" needs....so the R&D work was skimped and cut and chopped and died...especially if it looked like it would take more Billions to move ahead...

This is also true in the robotic side of the house. e.g JWST is spending gobs of money simultaneously advancing technology for the mission, while they are developing the mission.

And whatever happened to Code R? or Code X? our 'technology' mission directorates? Long gone.

NASA has learned to deal with scarcity of resources....and given what Congress wants it to do, and the breadth of what Congress wants it to do, there isn't enough money to go around ..

The good thing about Obamaspace it is effectively kills the HSF 'mission' competition with HSF R&D, allowing R&D to make some headway.

As critics of Obamspace point out though, without a mission to focus the R&D it's a 'mission to nowhere' scenario.

Unfortunately, it takes both R&D money, lots of it, and focused mission commitment, to make it work. Admiral Stiedle had it right: create a plan that infuses technologies into the missions...so you are always leveraging technologies for the next mission set. Too bad he comes from the DoD side of the house where money is not an issue.

Oh, and for those that say: NASA doesn't need to generate it's own access to LEO, in much the same way DoD doesn't need its own access to theater's of war: Question: At what point in aviation history did DoD rely on commercial transport to get it's soldiers to where they needed to go?

I Bet it wasn't before planes were flying commercially....

1. However, if one looks to the robotic side of the house, the Launch Services Program adds 10's of Millions to the cost of a commercial launch vehicle."

Which is still cheaper than commercial launch insurance or the DOD incremental costs for a launch. Also, most of the additional 10's of millions is driven by the spacecraft project in additional requirements and not due to insight.

2. It will take a partnership between the Florida State Government and NASA to reduce the federal oversight on the Merchant 7 to keep costs down.

The State of FL has no say in this what so ever on any level.

3. If I'm Elon MusK though,....

It has nothing to do with USAF bureaucracy or federally owned facilities. It has to do with choosing a launch pad that is near other launch pads and the public. Also, the FAA will always be involved as long as Spacex is an American company, which is required to get NASA contracts.

".. so, redesign Constellation without a booster, maybe with RS-68. Problem solved. Instead you are throwing the baby with the bad water."

I am trying to figure out how recreating Atlas or Delta in the Constellation booster keeps "the baby as the bad water (the solid) is tossed".

Robert G. Oler

One tiny little niggle. They won't be launching Euronauts from Guiana Space Centre. Not in the short term. The current tranche of Soyuz-ST Semyorkas (15 at last count) are for Galileo and other sats. Even then they are roughly 2 years behind schedule!
My guess would be 10+ satellite launches and then *maybe* they could add the ground infrastructure to support HSF. However they could just as easily just buy a Soyuz Capsule and launch from Baikonur. Although in the long term the Soyuz Capsule to to be replaced.
"2010 June: A preliminary design of the PTK NP spacecraft to be completed."
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk_np.html

Interesting take on the Ares I. There hasn't been much written in the publicly available data regarding the performance shortfalls of the first stage. We've seen a lot of sniping from the sidelines but all the public info indicates that the 5 segment test met performance goals, which isn't surprising since the propellant is pretty well characterized on the shuttle program. Thrust oscillations? No reports of them being seen.

You also stated that SSME couldn't be air lit. That seems moot given it's thrust seems way too high for the job. That aside, there's nothing on the SSME (where there's a lot of public data available) that makes it inherently not suited for air light. Restart, that's another issue but Ares I is never called to restart.

J-2 is beyond it's "growth" margin? Which orifice is that pulled from? Are you saying it's going into a combustion stability region that's not understood (at half the thrust of the RS-68 made by the same company)? Are you saying the structural modifications to increase pressures can't be predicted (by the same company that makes the SSME)? Are you saying that the performance of a large nozzle extension can't be analyzed (by the same company that makes the RL-10B2)? Given the J-2 at Ares performance levels has completed a very well scrutinized CDR and is about to enter test, I would say this is also a baseless comment.

I only point these out since it pretty much destroys any credence to the other things you say. Ares I, while not a candidate for the "machine beauty" award, is perfectly viable and should be very low risk given an opportunity to continue.

Why do you assume that a new launch site is necessary at all?

You could fly a Boeing capsule on an Atlas V off of LC-41.

And if you're worried about rate, build a dedicated Vertical Integration Facility and Mobile Launch Platform for human space flight. And if NASA uses it only once or twice a year for crew launch, NASA Exploration missions would benefit from the additional facility.

I fail to see how KSC could EVER make LC-39 cost effective for a commercial crew launch company, especially if the NASA intent is to continue to employ lots of folks.

Are we at Mars yet NASA ? yes we are, we are looking for life at this time.

@ me:Also, most of the additional 10's of millions is driven by the spacecraft project in additional requirements and not due to insight.

Had a conversation with Larry Williams, Space X VP for Government business a few years ago. He said that the price of the Falcon 1 would be double to a NASA customer vs. non NASA because of all the requirements KSC imposed on them. And this was before any 'project' was involved to lay their mission unique on the situation.

"Keep the shuttle going until there is a replacement ready to take astronauts safely into orbit."

There isn't the money to do both. Pick one.

"stated that SSME couldn't be air lit. That seems moot given it's thrust seems way too high for the job. That aside, there's nothing on the SSME .. that makes it inherently not suited for air light."

Well, it's also a complex engine which is intended to be re-used - maybe not the best choice for a 'use one and discard' application.

"perfectly viable and should be very low risk given an opportunity to continue"

Thank you for providing all the hard data to counteract the un-informed spin.

"We've seen a lot of sniping from the sidelines but all the public info indicates that the 5 segment test met performance goals, which isn't surprising since the propellant is pretty well characterized on the shuttle program"

We just disagree.

A booster test with the booster solidly anchored to the inert mass of the earth means nothing in terms of the vibration the booster will have going up the hill...and predicting performance ofa new solid with a new nozzle etc is about like predicting the amount of damage a large foam sized object would do to the orbiter from the "minor pricks" that occurred before.

Even turbojet engines that run great in the test cell have problems when they are first flown (see the B777 initial test flight, the dual compressor stalls were exciting for everyone).

Likewise with the J2-X. It is essentially a new engine. It has some legacy hardware but any engine that grows in performance by the amount that the J2X is...is not a legacy engine.

As for "safe". Well I have all the predictions pre the first shuttle flight as to how safe the Shuttle was going to be. I have them after Challenger, and I have the ones now after Columbia. The first two seemed to be flawed predictors of performance so I have no reason to think that the third set is not...nor do I have any reason to put faith in stats generated for a rocket like Ares 1. Of course I dont think it will ever fly...

and we have not said a thing about cost.

NASA is very very good on paper studies and paper safety. The real world. Not so much.

Robert G. oler

The ideas posted here of continuing to fly the Shuttle while still building Constellation are really unrealistic. Even if the nation was to decide to fund both efforts, the shuttle is near the end of its design life as many components are nearing/past the end of their qualification life and would require a significant effort to re-qualify (and some of the original vendors are already gone). Wear and tear maintenance on shuttle is increasing as you would expect with a 30+ year old vehicle. Also, Constellation and Shuttle are competing for common facilities (e.g., MAF production, launch pad mods required for Ares, etc.). I think it is time to recognize that the shuttle needs to be retired an move on to the next vehicle for LEO, either Ares or commercial.

"If we are going to spend a lot of money NOW we should do it to help people who are "going under" due to bad decisions made in Washington. Not on space projects which have no value for the cost"...there you have it. The reason why obama added billions to the NASA budget on a plan to no where.

No, Ares I is not viable to continue and is high risk. It is performance constrained and can not provide the necessary lift capability for Orion. The requirements for Ares I is not to lift X lbs to orbit but to lift Orion to orbit. If Orion, to meet it requirements, needs to be X + Y lbs, then Ares I must lift X + Y lbs. And here lies the problem, Ares I is maxed out.

"the shuttle is near the end of its design life as many components are nearing/past the end of their qualification life and would require a significant effort to re-qualify".

Where are you getting your information?

It is completely in error.

The Shuttles were designed for a life of 100 missions. They are only 1/3 of the way through that. Many of the systems have been updated and upgraded. The Shuttle is re-certified for every mission.

While new orders would need to be placed for some components, mainly on the ET and SRB, with appropriate funding the Shuttle could continue to fly for many more years.

"Likewise with the J2-X. It is essentially a new engine. It has some legacy hardware but any engine that grows in performance by the amount that the J2X is...is not a legacy engine."

A "new" engine with a mature development program meeting all perfomance metrics scheduled for testing early next year.

Is interesting how often Constellation gets attacked for using too much heritage technology, but now also for using "new" technology ... Darn if you do, darn if you don't.

What a shame to see the landing of Atlantis for the last time. Atlantis was certified for 100 flights. So now, after only 32 flights it will be gutted, stuffed and mounted as a museum piece.

Thanks to presidents Ronald Reagan and George W.Bush the shuttle is now dead.

Jim