Let The Layoffs Begin

Sad it has to be this way, It did not have to happen this way.

It will take some further action to erase 52 years history and start again to settle the solar system and beyond.
A cadence we used to do during training
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KniwXwj0xnc

What a pathetic excuse for a leader this President is.
He keeps sending Bolden to get shredded by Congress and does nothing to back his plan with useful facts.
If his plan had a shred of practicality, it wouldn't be this hard to sell.
Unfortunately, he is crucifying NASA by their own hand, Bolden, and shutting down anyone that tries to make progress, Hanley.
Why? Because he doesn't want to continue a Program Bush started.
Weak.

"If his plan had a shred of practicality, it wouldn't be this hard to sell."

More like if his plan had more pork jobs this wouldn't be this hard to sell--members of Congress could care less about how the U.S. gets to ISS, all they care about is the # of jobs for their district. Look how quickly Nelson & Kosmas got on board with the Obama plan-all it took was a ride on Air Force One and $40 million worth of pork for "transitioning space coast jobs"-Obama didnt change anything meaningful about the plan they initially opposed.

Besides if this wasn't all about jobs what other reason would there be to just now *seriously* talk a shuttle extension well beyond 2010 to "close the gap" when the Shuttle's successor in the POR wasn't going to be ready for MAYBE another 7-9 years ?

I can't agree with your summary. What everyone, space geek or not (and I am on fundamentally), has to realize is that the space program has to take its' part in the big picture. You can bandy about all the budget numbers and it is only 3% of this other agencies budget but it all is relative and all is costly. There is simply not the money, irregardless of where you think the money should go, to do it all. Constellation was simply becoming hugely over budget and behind schedule. And any major move to a new system is going to cost a huge amount of money. So they had a commission, biased or not it still had smart members, to look at what was happening and what could be done within a reasonable budget. And what they came up with isn't too bad considering what money we have to make do with. And you will always have people on both sides with their opinions. However the noisiest are from the states where jobs will be cut and money will be moved elsewhere. I would dare hazard a guess that these very loud congressmen wouldn't be saying much at all if they were from another state. But I will agree I would like to see more concrete plans being drawn up sooner rather than the rather esoteric plan of developing new technologies for future manned exploration. Hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later. And no matter what us space geeks desire the politics will play as big a role as the real program and what it accomplishes.

No, CxP was a technically flawed program that needed to be put out of is misery long ago.

For some unknown reason, the current DC crowd seems to be intent on not acknowledging the flaws - perhaps because the current congressional crowd were duped into continual funding and they're trying not embarress them (maybe because it would include some dems too)?

@spaceman85:
Nelson and Kosmas don't seem to have gotten it yet, the KSC CxP folks will probably appreciate the jobs transition thing.

But the Shuttle folks mostly are just not that into it and if they really have to transition into some other line of non-hsf work - job or no job, the demise of the hsf program at KSC will not earn any of the current politicians any votes.

@not_confused & @spaceman85 They way you two are talking about people being laid off and making light of it is upsetting. There were MANY paths Obama/Bolden could have taken to do any number of revamps or even total re-direction of the POR, without costing good people their jobs and their dreams. And without throwing away billions in research and problem solving. Regardless of the direction we take there WILL be problems, and the problems you know are always better than the problems you don't know. Anyone with experience working on a major project would understand that.

I know many people who have such a bad taste in their mouth about how Obama/Bolden are handing this that they are leaving (or being laid off) and will not be returning to space or at least not HSF. Hanley was a great leader given a crud job of trying to pull this program together with many things stacked against him, and he was rewarded with being removed from his post. Congress should see that move for what it is, a blatant attempt to circumvent congressional authority.

Jonny is right, if I have to watch Bolden go before congress and not be able to answer ANY real question that is asked of him much longer without congress taking action I will be very disappointed with our whole system. He never has any real answers or real data, while that was unecusable after the announcement was initially made which shocked everyone, his continuing lack of knowledge about this whole approach is nothing short of an insult to every one of the directs and subcontractors which he is affecting with this decision. How can we support something when our leader doesn't even know what he is trying to push? This isn't the military where you "do what you are told" this is the scientific community where facts and analysis rein (NASA being the shining example of scientific excellence the world over).The fact they continue to make cuts, continue to stall programs, and continue to do whatever they want flying in the face of what Congress has in law blows me away. Everyone knows what is happening, how they are killing the program but no one is forcibly stopping them. Even Orion, which Obama said in his speech he wants not only for the CRV but also as a stepping stone for developing BEO vehicles, is being destroyed bit by bit. Speaking from where I sit, our team has gone from over 60 people with the prospect of ramping up after PDR to close to 120... down to less than a dozen now. Going to work everyday in an office that used to be full and now is a ghost town, is something that hurts each time we walk through the door.

There will be no one left to develop anything on Orion very soon, if Obama really wants to use Orion he needs to act to stop this. I personally think he, and Bolden, are going to strip Orion down to nearly nothing set it up for failure and then say "See we knew they couldn't meet their time line."

I for one am going to try and ride this out doing my best each day on this program I love so much, hoping people will wake up and realize what they are doing before it is too late... if it isn't already. It is a testament to the will and expertise of all the team members involved with Orion that we continue to produce in the mist of such adversity.

In Bolden's words "While reasonable people can disagree", reasonable people shouldn't be attacking the dreams and lively hood of programs which perform on a daily basis above and beyond their milestones and are part of the "future plans" of both sides of this argument.

@not_confused: Your flipant tone, and "LOLs" posted in these forums which fly in the face of thousands of people hard work continues to upset me and most people on this board who are "reasonable people". Perhaps you should shape your words and ideas with more care, before unleashing them upon the world.

> What a pathetic excuse for a leader this President is.
> He keeps sending Bolden to get shredded by Congress

More wild delusion. Every President has better things to do.

What you should be noting about this news is that Lockheed Martin is happy to lay off Orion workers at the same time as Boeing is clawing to make and sell a capsule on its own.

Is Lockheed Martin the company you want building your capsule? The company that doesn't want to?

This is what free market means. The people without passion and excellence are stripped away by competition.

Are you afraid Lockheed Martin can't compete against Boeing on the free market? I bet they are.

It will take some further action to erase 52 years history and start again to settle the solar system and beyond.(Quote)

Why do the retro spam canners keep calling Orion a step forward? It is :
- Back to throwing away huge rockets, primary power systems, Primary propulsion systems, Life support systems, and an entire spacecraft every time you fly.

- Back to landing in the Ocean requiring half the navy to look for it.

- Back to the Astronaut corps being a small elite unit where only four at a time can go up at twice the expense.

You are not going to colonize the solar system by going back to space the same way we did 40 yearts ago. Not going to happen.

@not_confused: Your flipant tone, and "LOLs" posted in these forums which fly in the face of thousands of people hard work continues to upset me and most people on this board who are "reasonable people". Perhaps you should shape your words and ideas with more care, before unleashing them upon the world.

Well contractor, I have been there done that, have been thru it at least 10 times with NASA. If it upsets you fine by me. After having been there before, it makes me upset as you seem to be.

Sorry to say things, However keep up the good work.
Having to work the BS that is flying in my face it makes you wonder what you are doing. I did not propose the Cx program before Congress changed without review and approval and sign a contact full of no requirements and transfer funds to make the program hopefully work. Change is now before you. I support the change!

have great memorial day
The Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX8wxWXkaIo

"Constellation was simply becoming hugely over budget and behind schedule."

I would like to hear the details on this talking point..
This is simply a talking point that has tossed around and repeated over and over again. You have simply attached your own argument to something you likely have no clue about.

I would wager a guess that Apollo was over budget and behind schedule at some point in the development.
Same for Space Shuttle.
Same for just about every single gov't or city program in history.
Here's a snipet
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/government-cost-overruns

The point being.. we are shutting down the countries most mature, reliable and achieveable path to having a domestic capability to carry people into Orbit over a talking point.

The way the gov't solicits contracts always leads the bidders to underbid for services. It's embedded in the RFP process we use for all gov't acquisitions, which is why every gov't program, large and small, always end up over budget and behind schedule. It's simply a ridiculous argument.

This Gov't has spent hundreds of times the amount of money to bail out the auto industry, major financial institutions etc... much much more than it would take to make constellation successful.
A program that was underfunded from the beginning.

You think the Commercial sector isn't dangling the inexpensive carrot out there to lock it in, then proceed to realize they are behind schedule and over budget? Actually, they already are. The Space Launch has slipped months already. Point being, this is not an easy business and they are finding that out.

The real fact is the entire NASA budget is a spec in the overall pork and waste that is contained in the federal budget. If we carve out real waste, and devote just a spec more to NASA's bduget, we'd have more than enough budget to accelerate the schedule and support all the commercial crew sandbox programs out there.

Targeting a critical program, that actually produces useful products, technology and services over the massive waste in the Federal budget as a way to save money is the true travesty in this mess.

"More wild delusion. Every President has better things to do.

What you should be noting about this news is that Lockheed Martin is happy to lay off Orion workers at the same time as Boeing is clawing to make and sell a capsule on its own."

I'm not the delusional one here..
This is the President that said "Nobody! is more concerned about Human Space flight than me"
If that were true, he would most certainly make an effort to make sense of the mess he started.

Lockheed Martin "happy" to layoff workers? Are you insane? Lockheed was forced by the actions of the Bolden and NASA into reducing the workforce on Orion. This is how it works.. Reduce the capability to perform the job, then point the finger and say "see they couldn't execute the program".
Get you facts straight.

@Orioncontractor - we probably know each other..
I have committed myself to this program as well. I will not quit working it until they drag me kicking and screaming out the door. I'm glad to see there are others that share that determination to deliver and finish the job.

@not_confused: you just keep flailing away.
With friends like you, who needs enemies...

This sure seems like an attempt to make an end run around Sen Shelby's legislation forbidding termination of Constellation without Congressional approval. Mr Bolden's gonna get himself another grilling.

But what I find most curious is that NASA found a way to dump the contract termination costs onto the contractors. I wonder how those contract savy lawyers at Lockheed-Martin let THAT happen!

@FormerObamanaut

"No, CxP was a technically flawed program..."

Please enlighten me and don't reiterate the over budget, behind schedule talking points. You said technical, let's hear technical.

What everyone seems to have forgotton the Constellation program involving the Ares 1 rocket and Orion capsule are years behind schedule. The program was conceived 2004 and what have we got so far. The Orion capsule we got so far is a boiler plate mockup version not the real thing yet. It was due to carry 6 astronauts but because of an underpowered Ares rocket had to be cut back to 4 crew members.
The Ares 1 rocket was due for launch originally in 2012, then it was due in 2014. The last i heard it was looking closer to 2017. If the Ares Rocket was on schedule for 2012 would the program been cancelled?
We are talking about a solid fueled rocket not liquid fuel rocket with all the complicated pipes and valves.
And don't forget its way underpowered. The Apollo program of the 1960s had moved a hell of a lot faster with far less technology NASA has now.
At the rate the program was moving the Ares 5 heavy lift rocket wouldn't of been ready till the mid 2020 at the earliest.

But is it right to cancel the shuttle program before a replacement program has come online? I really not sure it is.

Constellation Apollo on steroids? What rubbish

"Please enlighten me and don't reiterate the over budget, behind schedule talking points. You said technical, let's hear technical. "

Ares 1 couldnt lift Orion unless it became "The incredibly shrinking Orion"

Robert G. Oler

@Holmes...

The contract award for the Orion capsule was about 3 years ago.. Not sure how the capsule design can be that many years behind schedule when the contract wasn't awarded til just a few years ago.

I don't know the details on the Ares.

Re my comment for Ares 5 rocket what meant was we wont see launched before mid 2020s. I.e not before 2025.

"The Apollo program of the 1960s had moved a hell of a lot faster with far less technology NASA has now."

another thing to consider..
The NASA budget for the Apollo program peaked at about nearly 6% of the Fed Budget.
If NASA was provided the same percentage it be about $200B a year.. still not comparable to the money spent on corp bail outs.

> You said technical, let's hear technical.

Solid rocket motor debris can shred parachutes. Is that enough?

Here is the start of an insider list: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21787.0

To be fair, our economy won't collapse if we don't give NASA a bailout (granted, the same is true for GM). However, with the bank bailouts (TARP in particular), there was a very real likelihood of massive economic chaos, since a lot of those banks provided short-term loans for small businesses (especially retail businesses) that allowed those businesses to pay their employees. Were it not for the bailouts, those loans would probably go under along with the banks, resulting in millions of people being told they won't be getting a paycheck this month, and might not get one in the near future, and well, you can probably imagine how that would turn out.

So, bottom line, NASA funding isn't quite like the corporate bailouts (GM excepted), and the comparison breaks down consequently.

NASA doesn't need a bailout.
There wasn't a comparison to break down.
The point was the amount allocated to NASA pales in comparison to the huge amounts spent on things like bail outs.

However, I disagree that rewarding a corporations inability to manage their own books is necessary under any circumstances.
The hundreds of billions of dollars could have been used for those impacted directly, as a result of the mismanagement at the top, instead of keeping those that were responsible for the mess in business.

@RC "Solid rocket motor debris can shred parachutes. Is that enough?"

I'm assuming you are speaking about the LAS and the potential to damage the Orion descent parachutes? That system had a successful test just recently with more to follow (if there's funding). Or are you speaking about SRB chuffing and the potential for damaging the SRB recovery chutes? Recovery of the first stage is not considered critical. Do you have a link to a debris transport analysis that supports this concern? I'd like to take a look.

I also looked at the link provided but only found a few references to insufficient payload margins. Debatable depending on the numbers you are using to reach the conclusion. I believe the poster ementioned a 50klb Orion, but in the link below Jeff Hanley mentions a 21klb orion max prior to eating into mass growth allowances and project management reserves.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/FOUR042209.xml&headline=Weight%20Forcing%20NASA%20To%20Shrink%20Orion%20Crew&channel=space

Perhaps I read too quickly. Were there other numbers to look at besides pricetags?

@sherlock
I love these self declared experts who are actually completely clueless

"What everyone seems to have forgotton the Constellation program involving the Ares 1 rocket and Orion capsule are years behind schedule. The program was conceived 2004 and what have we got so far."

According to whom? In Bush's VSE speech delivered in 2004 he said the goal was to have a Crew Exploration Vehicle no later than 2015. Orion is currently on track for 2014. The Ares First stage also seems to be on track for late 2014. Do not know status of upper stage.

"The Orion capsule we got so far is a boiler plate mockup version not the real thing yet. It was due to carry 6 astronauts but because of an underpowered Ares rocket had to be cut back to 4 crew members."

You are wrong once again. Orion was conceived as a capsule to carry 4 astronauts to the Moon. Later the Project was asked if they could squeeze ISS into their reference missions and add two crew members for those ISS missions. Due to under-performance of Ares, they had to eventually cut back down to 4.

"The Ares 1 rocket was due for launch originally in 2012, then it was due in 2014. The last i heard it was looking closer to 2017."

As far as I know, Ares is still on track for late 2014/early 2015 - or at least they would be if Headquartes wasn't doing everything in its power to shut the program down this past week. ("Promoting" Hanley, ordering CxP to set aside almost ALL of the remaining 2010 budget for termination). 2017 was a myth perpetuated by the Augustine commission that said if you do not increase funding (among other things) that it could be as late as 2017, it also assumed a lot of worst case scenarios.

"We are talking about a solid fueled rocket not liquid fuel rocket with all the complicated pipes and valves"

Oh, wow, I didnt realize we abandoned the upper stage, when did that happen? No wonder Ares was underperforming, we abandoned the liquid upper stage and nobody bothered to tell us. Glad to know that solid rockets are so uncomplicated and stuff too.

"At the rate the program was moving the Ares 5 heavy lift rocket wouldn't of been ready till the mid 2020 at the earliest."

You mean the Ares V rocket which has received virtually 0 funding so far because the funding never showed up from the previous administration and never showed up from the current administration and was supposed to really ramp up in 2011 after shuttle, when we got this cancellation program budget?

This round of layoffs is the beginning, it is about to get really bad for people working all projects on Constellation, from all companies. The worst part is, the timing. It comes right when USA and Boeing are about to unleash their next major wave of Shuttle layoffs. That 600 listed above is bad, but in a few months it is going to seem like a drop in the flood.

Heartbreaking post... One comment:

"watch Bolden go before congress and not be able to answer ANY real question that is asked of him
...
his continuing lack of knowledge about this whole approach"

What did you expect? He's just a mouthpiece for Holdren and Garver.

Since a few of you on here are legitimately knowledgeable regarding the technical facts, I feel compelled to correct a couple of details. Regarding the Orion-ISS mission change from 6 crew to 4 crew as the reference mission, Orion is still capable of housing 6 people since they didn't shrink the OML and Ares 1 can still lift 6 people to ISS if we ever decided that was a good idea. But we didn't need it and it simply made more sense to design the ISS mission to what ISS wanted (4 person crew transfer capable). ISS didn't want or need for Orion to cart 6 people back and forth. Regarding Orion mass, there are two key figures of merit: GLOM (Gross Lift Off Mass) and Crew Module mass (which is a portion of the GLOM mass). Regarding Orion GLOM, Ares 1 can lift the approximately 61k lbm of Orion mass using the 5-segment SRM and the J2 upper stage to insert it into the proper 51.6 deg ISS orbit. The 61k lbm roughly breaks out as follows (LAS=16K, CM=21400 lbm, SM=21k, SA/SAJ=3k). LAS and SA/SAJ are only partial GLOM insertion hits since they are jettisonned before orbital insertion. Orion Orbital Insertion mass is about 42k lbm or so (Orion and SM together including propellant). The CM is the key and that mass (21,400 lbm) is the bogey Orion is always struggling to remain under. The single biggest issue or driver which keeps us at CM

One other thing...for the Orion Contractor and any other Constellation worker who has been working their tail off to make America proud....hold your head high! You continue to do an amazing job despite severe under funding and apparent lack of commitment from above. Many people know this despite the negativity that comes from a few. The debate is philosophical and not technical....and in fact Orion could be launched into orbit much faster and cheaper than previously planned if the team were allowed to move with a flight test specific certification philosophy.

It's funny when the CxP haters make an argument citing "facts" about the program's performance. It's like hearing a six year old describing how a car works.

Let's at least get the facts of the discussion right, starting with the timeline. W lays out a vision in Jan 2004 - never mentions it again in public, never says anything about the funding, cancels all work on the Space Launch Initiative leaving industry with the Shuttle, Atlas, and Delta programs launching a couple years of ESAS studies. In Feb 2006, after two years of study to determine notional architectures and required budgets the booster and upper stage engine folks are given study money to start conceptual design of their parts. By mid-summer 2007 contractors are finally under contract to perform design work on an underfunded program. The plan Hanley was fired over shows an opportunity to fly crew on Orion/Ares in 2014.

What have we to show for these last 3 years when folks were finally turned on to do the underfunded efforts? We've launched Ares 1X shutting up all the fools who said you can't control the first stage flight of a long, skinny stick (most of them, anyway). We've fired a 5 segment SRM, scaled up manufacturing technologies for tank manufacturing, and flown a pad abort demonstrator. We're about to complete the first Orion capsule to start testing, the first upper stage engine, an improved 5 segment SRM, as well as having detailed designs of the entire system. Nobody who's ever actually reviewed the designs of ANY of these parts has said the program is technically broken. Nobody but those who have another agenda promoting their self interests regardless of audited, verified results. We (the good ol' US of A) are still quite capable given a little time and money.

What can we learn from this in the Obama Plan? Shutting down CxP will lead to a couple years of "study" which will learn that physics hasn't changed much since 2004 and they'll need some big rocket to start exploring. Gen. Bolden keep saying he's " tired of that old chemical propulsion" so he may throw a few whack-jobs spouting tethers and laser propulsion some money to demonstrate why TRL 2 technologies are far off. Meanwhile the rest of our space infrastructure is dismantled or, worse, put on the charges of the Air Force's space efforts just bloating the "sustaining engineering" fixed costs. Shuttle isn't around to share the load this time.

Now I'll say it more simply for the "not confused" types out there. NASA can't act quickly to start new work. Years are wasted, good people who have provided a lot of service to this nation are made to suffer, and people will still criticize whatever results from the change. To make progress we must evolve systems, not act like dogs who change direction every time they see another squirrel. The first step to getting healthy is to admit that you're really confused.

The Obama Plan turns NASA into a technology sandbox without near-term goals and bets everything on unproven, yet quite archaic, technology based on a business case the NOBODY has ever shown to be valid. Orion/Ares isn't as cool as Single Stage to Orbit (but much more mature/feasible), Shuttle with Liquid Flyback Boosters (but much more sustainable and can actually leave low earth orbit), nor Two Stage to Orbit reusable systems like SLI (see all the above re: cost, LEO,...). It would work and give us a something to evolve from in the future.

Soooo. This is who NASA is now counting on for USA capability to get to LEO?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/28/autos/tesla_elon_musk/index.htm

For some reason, some of my previous note was cut off. The last comment regarding Orion CM mass was that the driver which mandates Orion remain below 21,400 Lbm is weight under the chutes and water landing impact loads. So Orion doesn't want to exceed 21,400 lbm in order to properly umbrella launch abort scenarios (i.e. water landing in high sea states and high loads) or nominal reentry, descent, landing loads (e.g. everything goes well up to chute deploy and then you have one chute out and higher sink rate and higher water landing impact loads). The main point is that Ares-1 performance isn't to blame for this....Orion has this landing mass limit concern independent of the Ares-1 GLOM capabilities. The Orion team has done a great job of dealing with this landed mass issue and continues to refine the design/capability to maximize the spacecraft's ability to allow crew to walk away from nominal water, off-nominal water, and off-nominal land landings with the 21,400 lbm upper limit as a design analysis guide. Not everything is Ares-1's fault... :)

Layoffs begin as early as this week.

Constellation is over! NASA is moving on!

I wonder if congress will start putting NASA people under oath when they testify before congress? Their answers might be different. They might take the 5th!

@ zarya34

Now that is good, technical data with no spin (hard to come by in these parts). Thanks Zarya34.

What's your take on criticisms regarding Ares I's operational costs? That's the major thing I'd be concerned about- if we're going to get serious about long-term BEO spaceflight, we need to keep an eye on the expense.

No one is hating Cx
It is a dated old design of apollo on steroids.
***
Now I'll say it more simply for the "not confused" types out there. NASA can't act quickly to start new work. Years are wasted, good people who have provided a lot of service to this nation are made to suffer, and people will still criticize whatever results from the change. To make progress we must evolve systems, not act like dogs who change direction every time they see another squirrel. The first step to getting healthy is to admit that you're really confused.
***

It is half baked plan that wasted billion of funds taken from other productive work in NASA of over the past five years. Congress and the Administration are very well aware of this, This is the very reason a FACA panel was assembled to review what was real and vapor.

You have little to nothing to show for 5 years of work.
There are many proposals in review for the NEW budget which are not for public review at this time. We have until Oct 1st 2010 in order to decide what will happen.

The centers that have felt the pain and not allowed to conduct productive work are going to have it it once again this include ARMD, SMD and the new Technology Mission activity.

The fact is NASA is not Cx and cancel everything not need for Cx!

Enjoy the transition process Cx, the majority of NASA have for the past 5 years.

I wish NASA could move on. The NASA folks I've spoken to say they have been told to try and stay busy for up to two years as there is no new assigns down the pike. You talk about waste. Sure the directors and high brass will be busy shaping whatever NASA is supposed to morph into. But just take that in. NASA will be employing civil servants for up to two years doing nothing. Literally nothing until HQ figures out what to do with them. Wake up folks. There is no Obama space plan!

"It's funny when the CxP haters make an argument citing "facts" about the program's performance. It's like hearing a six year old describing how a car works.

Let's at least get the facts of the discussion right, starting with the timeline. W lays out a vision in Jan 2004 - never mentions it again in public, never says anything about the funding, cancels all work on the Space Launch Initiative leaving industry with the Shuttle, Atlas, and Delta programs launching a couple years of ESAS studies. In Feb 2006, after two years of study to determine notional architectures and required budgets the booster and upper stage engine folks are given study money to start conceptual design of their parts."

EXPLORATION BELIEVER - your timeline and facts are in error.

During year after the Vision was announced the Administrator was Mr. O'Keefe and the Exploration AA was Admiral Steidle for a couple months beyond that. The plan was for a fly-back crew carrier to be boosted by commercial ELV. They were going to begin with a fly-off of two CEV prototypes in the 2008-2009 time frame before making a selection for a vehicle which would become operational in the 2012 time frame. The CEV design was to evolve through capability spirals which would keep pace with the budget. Lunar missions were going to be done using a series of medium lift launch vehicles and orbital rendezvous maneuvers.

Contractors were asked to develop bids and preliminary design concepts for the CEV and Lockheed proposed a winged/lifting body flyback vehicle, not a capsule.

ESAS was not commissioned until Griffin arrived in May 2005. ESAS was a 60 day study, announced after 90 days, and with several of its reports not publicly released. The announcement of 'Apollo on Steroids' was the result, announced in September, 2005.

"The Orion team has done a great job of dealing with this landed mass issue and continues to refine the design/capability to maximize the spacecraft's ability to allow crew to walk away from nominal water, off-nominal water, and off-nominal land landings with the 21,400 lbm upper limit as a design analysis guide."

The Orion team created the mass issue by defining and designing a capsule that was too large and too heavy.

Actually, my timeline is not in error. It omitted all the sidetracks of CEV, JIMO, and the other dithering before work actually started on something beyond viewgraph studies. The facts and the point remain, the CxP program hasn't been working for 6 or even 5 years like so many keep saying. Contracts that are only 3 years old have produced a lot of hardware and real data, not just viewgraphs.

The point remains, no real work towards exploration will happen for years if we change course again. Then again, maybe that's what the sandbox technologists at NASA prefer. Hopefully those in the agency who want to see it achieve greatness again will fight back. At least the management seems to promote folks who do.

It is half baked plan that wasted billion of funds taken from other productive work in NASA of over the past five years. Congress and the Administration are very well aware of this...
-------
Hmmm, wonder why Congress is having such a hard time approving the new
plan then?
-------
There are many proposals in review for the NEW budget which are not for public review at this time
-------
Why aren't they available for public review at this time? It is the public's tax dollars that are going to pay for them. I guess maybe that's the detail Congress has been asking Bolden for, but he never seems to have

This new budget proposal needs to be scrapped and re-written; Bolden and Garver need to be removed. Neither Congress or the workforce at NASA has any faith in their leadership at this point, in my opinion.

Exploration Believer, Orion Contractor, Spaceboy and Zarya34 need to go testify before Congress - they have their facts straight.

Miles Gray, I assume you mean NASA when you say the Orion team defined and designed a capsule that was too large and too heavy. While I agree with you that Orion was given an over-constrained problem at the beginning (i.e. Requirements which mandate Orion be designed for lunar missions with anyplace/anytime capability as well as ISS missions with OML sized to carry up to 6 people)....the simple fact of the matter is that Orion is an amazing design today which can, in fact, go pretty much anywhere NASA and the US government as it too. This includes ISS, Lunar, NEOs, Hubble....pretty much wherever you ask it to go. Yes, if you're scoped solely to ISS mission and up/down vice 210 day stays (which will be a problem for commercial to meet by the way), then it is overdesigned. If, as I said before, the Orion spacecraft should be mapped directly to beyond LEO capability, then I feel pretty good that we have an amazing spacecraft design. But that is just me. We'll get to see what the rest of the USA thinks here pretty soon, I suppose.

Excellent post 'Exploration Believer'.

And let me reiterate your main point which is exactly the same point I've been trying to make:
"no real work towards exploration will happen for years if we change course again."
And, to make it worse, when the commercial guys finally get a clue what it will take to achieve orbit, stay there, work productively, and return safely, their business case will lie in shattered pieces on the shop floor.
Then, no one (in this country anyway) will be going anywhere for a long time.

"a couple years of ESAS studies. In Feb 2006, after two years of study to determine notional architectures and required budgets the booster and upper stage engine folks are given study money to start conceptual design of their parts."

Your facts as you stated them are still in error. You say that Constellation resulted from an extended two year study. This is not accurate. Constellation resulted from a 60 day study. There was not a debate. Many of the reports important to the configuration definition were not released.

The Orion team need not have assumed an over-constrained problem to start. The Vision did not say 'the first step is to land on the moon'. Lunar missions might have been in the plan in a decade or two, but the only real and immediate requirement was for a crew and cargo transport to ISS. We needed it now!

There were lots of options open to NASA and the team. Size, mass, crew size, payload capacity, mission duration, launcher. For that matter Orion could have been based entirely on an Apollo CM airframe with some updated systems; just updating to current instrumentation, computers, controls and displays would have cleared 50% additional volume. Orion could have used an entirely existing booster....The team made its decisions and got into the problems and delays it got into. No one made them go the direction they went.

As far as "the amazing design today"; the capsule has gotten as far as PDR. It has a long way to go before its ready to carry people in space (probably seven years additional based on the Augustine/Aerospace reviews). Its booster is lagging, which means it really has no way of reaching orbit.

At least if the diameter had been slightly smaller, you could have carried an Orion in the Shuttle's payload bay.

"Its booster is lagging, which means it really has no way of reaching orbit."

3,500,000 lbs of thrust is lagging? There isn't anything (besides Shuttle) that comes close. If that's lagging then we need to get to work on heavy lift.

You really are asking me....?

Why aren't they available for public review at this time? It is the public's tax dollars that are going to pay for them. I guess maybe that's the detail Congress has been asking Bolden for, but he never seems to have.

HHdude, I laughing here, go read the 2011 budget, it talks all about the proposals. The first proposal is to Zero Fund Cx.

This is the best idea since sliced bread. With all the Cx Hardware that is built, where is it? The tax dollars purchased this hardware for NASA use.

"With all the Cx Hardware that is built, where is it?"

Being tested.

First Stage DM-2 being built up for test:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/multimedia/ares/10_042.html

First Stage recovery chutes tested successfully:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/multimedia/ares/drogue_parachute_2010.html

Ullage motor development testing complete:
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Marshall_Completes_Ullage_Motor_Development_Test_For_Ares_I_Rocket_999.html

Ares LAS system test successful:
http://www.universetoday.com/2010/05/06/successfull-test-for-orion-launch-abort-system-video/

Thanks Rat

So what Cx hardware is "Spaceflight certified" and complete after $9 billion and 3 years of effort ?

There has to something as every Cx supporter is stating why is the program cancelled? We have a goal for the moon mission like 1960.

Then also what hardware should NASA keep funding as useful to explore an Manned Asteroid mission and then on to Mars ?

Yes, I'm asking you - you are the one that stated there are many NEW proposals that are NOT available for public review. I have read the 2011 proposed budget - that is available for public review. You state that 'we' have until October 1, 2010 in order to decide what will happen.

Unless you are a member of Congress, I think that they will be deciding what will happen, obviously they are not pleased with new proposal and have asked Bolden countless times for more detail.

I'm just glad they are listening to their constituents on this....