OSTP's Holdren Comments on Space Policy Reaction

Nothing very surprising in his statement, but it sure looked like there was a goldfish swimming around in the water pitcher.

Sounds right

Holdren...your getting bad press because Obama's plan sucks.

He seemed condescending towards the Apollo astronauts.

He may have been right about the problems with Constellation, but the issue is that we are replacing Constellation with nothing definite. There may be benefits from the commercial strategy, but we don't know what, when or how close to what we need, e.g., an NEO defense.

Bad press! LOL

Bad press!!!!

He needs to keep up on current events better.
This guy is disconnected from reality in a scary way.

He may not like what Armstrong said, but he better come to grips with the reality of *why* Obama's "plan" is getting the stink eye from congress and a very large number of astronauts and other persons of note.

So Holdren keeps repeating Aerospace's numbers even after Aerospace sent a letter to Congress saying that their numbers have no basis for an independent cost and schedule analysis and were for option comparison only. I can only think this probably ticks off Congress further every time he spouts this.

Thank you Gary01 for that brilliant analysis.

Does your mommy know that you're playing on the internet?

Where are the engineers?

Why is the news about this all astronauts vs politicians and bean counters?

(I brought this up before and someone noted that Armstrong was an engineer, but he's testifying as an ex-astronaut, not an AE.)

The public would be better off if the debate were about hardware, not who took a trip 40 years ago.

Holdren....your analysis is just like your plan, you spout off dollar figures and have yet to have any of their numbers verified. And just where are the other astronauts ??? I guess Buzz was napping? They also caught you friend Bolden in a outright lie about commercial needing a bail out at whatever cost....how does that figure into the cost savings and all of the other incidentals that launching a rockets coast....military support, range support, countdown and facilities ??? If they can launch so cheap, then how does one keep up the infrastructure and all that is needed to support a commercial launch. I know....the taxpayer. Boy, what a savings that is ! Your time line sucks...no way are you getting to LOE, cargo and man-rated in three years.....a bit optimistic. I'll bet we don't get anything going that somewhat resembles a program for 7-10 years.....have at it Russia and China....ops....India too ! Come on folks, call it what it is....its another Obama health care stunt and we will be paying for years to come, while he's out of office the next go round. It's simple....keep shuttle flying and get moving on heavy lift and let the rocket wonder boys try there hand and see how far they get....and no more $$$ till they are proven. No more seed money for commercial. If they can't do it without assistance, they they cannot participate.

Keep the good and honest work up Dr Holdren

The bad press is from the crying fools who think the CxP plan was a savior to NASA and its future.

Let Science and the Scientific process lead NASA forward.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/04/nasas_inspector_general_resign.html
NASA's controversial inspector general Robert Cobb has resigned following bipartisan calls for his resignation and criticism from fellow watchdogs, most notably a recent Government Accountability Office report that determined he had done little to identify waste or fraud at the space agency. His resignation is effective April 11.

Appointed by then-President George W. Bush in 2002, lawmakers, former colleagues and government watchdogs had expressed concerns in recent years that Cobb compromised the integrity and independence of NASA's inspector general office by blocking or killing internal investigations and sharing investigative results with then-NASA administrator Michael Griffin before completion. Cobb disputed such accusations, investigations and reports.

News of Cobb's resignation pleased lawmakers long concerned by his tenure.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that oversees NASA said in a statement last night that “News of Robert Cobb’s resignation is certainly welcome and this is an important step forward," adding later that "The time has come to close the door on this troubling chapter for NASA and a fresh start awaits.”

Holdren is talking about the financial idiocy of the POR. The numbers he is talking about are those developed by Augustine NOT Aerospace. You will note also that the POR costings are not being contested by Giffords in her correspondence with Aerospace. But hey don't let reality get in the way of pointless comment.

What really ticks Congress off is the simple fact that they failed to realise that they were being sold a "bag of ordure" under the POR and too proud to 'fess up to that ignorance. In addition they would like to sweep under the carpet the even simpler fact that they underfunded the POR. Of course we now know that they could have doubled the funding but the POR would still have delivered a governmental space/moon taxi service that was unaffordable. But that is neither here nor there. The process has now become one of shifting the blame combined with grabbing as much space pork that they can out of the ensuing mess.
What most of the posters on this thread don't realise is that Obama & Holdren have figured all this into his game plan. Including mindless opposition from an entrenched enemy.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31705281@N03/

If Congress doesn't get behind 2011 and quick, there will be tears before bedtime.
Mommy knows best!

You know for all the space enthusiast out there, I am glad you support the space program and all, but this gets beyond ridiculous when you sit here and tell the people who have worked in the industry for 10-20-30 years and have multiple degrees in various fields of engineering that you know more than us because you read an article in Popular Science or heard a speech by some talking head. Human Space Flight is not easy and it is not cheap and it will not be either easy or cheap for a long long time no matter how many drugs you slip into your water.

Well for the record, Orion keeps continuing to nail new milestones month after month and is still on track for a 2014 IOC. So Holdren and Augustine and all the naysayers and fantasy weavers and all the fan boys and all the armchair engineers can say whatever they want. But the REALITY is that the people designing and building and testing the Orion spacecraft are chugging along and doing their job and making steady progress toward the goal that was announced in the VSE speech in 2004, of Initial Operating Capability no later than the end of 2014.

Go Oreon!

BTW - great he names 3 astronauts, one of whom is a glory hound who will go to untold depths (dancing with the stars, rapping with snoop dogg) to get media attention - fails to mention that in addition to Cernan and Armstrong (who avoids the media at all costs) - 27 other former Astronauts, Mission Directors and Program Managers also sent a letter to the President railing against the plan. Also, Sally Ride was part of the Augustine Panel so she feels obligated to defend the "plan" since they claim the plan was developed from the commision's report. Basically, that was nothing more than a whiny little boo hoo by Holdren - "why are they picking on us and our vapor plan?"

Just like most of the administrations policy advisors - a career teacher (harvard). He doesn't know advantages of DEVELOPING anything because he never has.

Thank you for the link to the lovely cartoons.

The link is to the Letter submitted by the Aerospace Corp.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/05/aerospace-corp.html

Under official Congressional record stating their involvement as the 'data and technical cost and schedule analysis' arm for the Augustine Commission. If you go back and watch the public presentation from July 2009 (This is pretty common knowledge for anyone). you will see Gary Pulliam is presenting as part of their task order to the Augustine Commission some dates and cost type numbers assessment. You can also download the August 12th 2009 presentation, which is the genesis for all the 2017,2018, 2028 2030 dates, there you will see that the costing Lead is the Aerospace Corp. working for the Augustine Commission.

This is where they said any plan coming from NASA will cost 1.51 times more to develop and 1.28 times more to operate based on historical factors unless : a) it was the Shuttle or the ISS, b) they were directed to use a number as is by the Commission (such as commercial crew, technology development, commercial lander) this factor was applied uniformly regardless of any particular program maturity, acquisition strategy, concept fidelity etc. They did give credit for cost incurred to date.

This is usually acceptable for a top level trade study to find a major discriminator but very poor practice to use any of this type of data as an absolute finding outside of the study context.

Now none of the 'more exciting options' were examined on the reduced budget profile that the Cx Architecture was examined on and the Cx architecture was not examined under the '+$3B less constrained' scenario. Please review the August 12th presentations by Dr. Ride.

This means their is no basic 'apples to apples' comparison even under the normal trade study rules for basic budgeting scenario comparison between the Program to the other options at all from a cost and schedule context.

As to the level of fidelity of the close look that Dr. Holdren states is:

The answer to Congress' question 9 in the Aerospace letter is:

Question 9. Did Aerospace perform an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) or Independent Schedule Estimate (ISE) for the Constellation program or its major elements?

Aerospace did not perform a traditional parametric or grass-roots Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) or Independent Schedule Estimate (ISE) for the Constellation Program or its major elements.

They then later state that when they applied their cost growth 1.51 factors, used the reduced FY10 budget, (which took 20%-40% out of the HSF budget through 2020),and assumed technical risks came true (which so far seems to not be the case following the results of the 1-X and LAS tests, and did a 1-3 day quick look ( as stated by the Committee in the August 12th 2009 public meeting of having 2 weeks to come up with and evaluate all the budget options ) at Constellation that they saw a potential slip of 3-4 years.

What is shocking is that the NASA budget numbers were so conservative that it only extended the development of the current system by 3-4 years and that the heavy lift portion only stretched out 2-3 years once they got it started under the decreased budget, inflated cost scenario.

This is the sum total of the actual cost and schedule analysis that is being cited by the OSTP director as the 'close looK' at the Program of Record when he cites $ and dates from the Augustine HSF Commission.

Congress held hearings on this and concluded that they:

To quote Gabrielle Giffords - D, AZ

"Probably the most important finding of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans is the panel’s determination that there is a serious mismatch between the challenges that we have asked NASA to meet and the resources that have been provided to the agency.

In other words, we can’t get anywhere worth going to under NASA’s projected budgets.

Well, we certainly didn’t need an independent commission to tell us that."

(She is referring to the NASA FY10 budget which flatlined the agency and reduced HSF projected spending by 20-40% when projected outwards a the committee did through 2025)

Now there are many legitimate reasons to reduce or cancel the program from an executive policy standpoint. I am not enamored with a lot of implementation facets of the program. In fact our track record shows that is the historical trend is we as a nation do not find it of a pressing enough need to pursue it for the expense. We canceled it in 1970, and again in 1992-93. Hopefully one day we determine. This cancellation seems to be closer to the 1970 time frame in that there is a slew of active contracts and industry government teams in place building hardware so the turmoil will be pretty high and progress will likely be set back over the next few to many years as the post cancellation litigation phase overwhelms the NASA infrastructure.

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 real world practical experience as a pilot, test pilot and development engineer, a good theoretical 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 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,
-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.

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.

Well Steve, analysis can be summed up just as easily as your constant analysis of everyone's comments on this board. An analysis of your history on the board shows that you are persistent in your judgement of others here.

But to help you understand more clearly why Holdren doesn't understand his problem with the press, I submit: Congress, et al are balking at Obama's NASA plan without the press's help. Evidence of this is very simple, the press reports after the fact not before. Therefore, the press is reporting that Obama's plan sucks because they are reporting not creating.

Give my regards to your mommy.

This has to be the most idiotic stupidest lack of knowledge comment I have read in quite sometime.

They also caught you friend Bolden in a outright lie about commercial needing a bail out at whatever cost....how does that figure into the cost savings and all of the other incidentals that launching a rockets coast....military support, range support, countdown and facilities ???

Gen Bolden to the panel, he knows who was on the line but that was all he knew, However he also knows by law certain other people can listen to such calls. Then the certain other people have a duty to report to Congress.

Follow the truth! Newton and the flu virus.

There were some significant changes between the original Feb 1 announcement of the President's policy, and the April 15 Presidential address at KSC. In between times Obama added back an Orion capsule and called on deferral of the HLV for 5 years.

I wonder if the astronauts that Holdren cites, Grunsfeld, Ride, and Aldrin, can address these changes. Were these changes as much a surprise to them as they were to the rest of us ?

Why is the small Orion return capsule required? Why defer the HLV?

Aldrin is frequently touted was one of the architects of the new plan; he has been working his planetary cycling plan for at least 20 years. I wonder what he has to say about not turning our Shuttle assets into an HLV in the near future. For his vehicle he needs the capability to launch Shuttle-payload sized modules and elements. Why does he want to defer this capability? Aldrin's vehicle probably does not require a ballistic return capsule. His vehicles cycle between orbits and return the crews to someplace like ISS for their subsequent return. What does Buzz say about the addition of this capsule?

I suspect that Obama and Holdren pulled a fast one when they started making some last minute, poorly thought out changes to their plan. I suspect their late changes were never vetted by anyone.

Lets get these great brains together to discuss what they think is necessary and how best to get the job done. NASA with AIAA is holding a conference in Galveston in 10 days. Lets get all of these people together then.

Not only is he not well advised, he cannot tell he is being terribly mislead even with the screaming red flags flying everywhere including in congress and members of his own party.

Most of the space supporting community is up in arms against this very poor plan like I have never seen it mobilized in my life! and he still listens to his "advisors" that have botched this so badly?

Why?

He needs to hit that much talked about "reset" button and start over. But that would require wisdom and humility to do so. It's clear congress is going to have do it for him.

> He doesn't know advantages of DEVELOPING anything because he never has.

The new plan develops new systems. Meanwhile do you know the disadvantages of developing new systems?

> "In other words, we can’t get anywhere worth going to under NASA’s projected budgets."

Giffords is wrong, and so are you for agreeing with her. Augustine's review found the opposite of what you think. Do you even know the title of the report?

> the plan seems to have been come up with almost casually.

The new plan is what I expected after watching the Augustine hearings, so either I'm a prodigy or it was clear what the experts liked. I'm not a prodigy. Your three listed concerns were discussed for hours in hearings. Maybe you just didn't know about this?

Well, I wish the story on Orion was as "easy" as that. While Orion is indeed meeting certain milestones, it's meeting them several years late and burning through substantially more cash than originally planned. For example, the Pad Abort 1 test flight was originally scheduled for Fall 2008 but actually occurred just 2 weeks ago. Needless to say, a lot of money was probably spent early on to expedite hardware through design and production to support that original flight date. Also, there have been compromises in Orion performance & capability to meet cost and schedule. Big among them to me is the fact that we can only get 4 astronauts to ISS versus 6 as originally envisioned. Granted, Orion is indeed limited by the capabilities of its Ares I launcher, the fact of the matter is Orion under the current POR will not meet quite a bit of the original goals for crew capability, ECLSS, etc. Given the current pace of the program, Orion will definitely not get IOC by 2014.
I think the question is do we simply continue the investment to get a quite mediocre vehicle significantly later than originally planned or do we take the best of Ares/Orion and move forward in a different direction. The idea to take Orion forward as a rescue capsule design initially makes sense as it removes Orion from the limits of Ares I. With a more capable launcher under it, Orion can be upgraded to better meet its originally intended goals.

If it hit you in the head you would not notice?

Not only is he not well advised, he cannot tell he is being terribly mislead even with the screaming red flags flying everywhere including in congress and members of his own party.

Most of the space supporting community is up in arms against this very poor plan like I have never seen it mobilized in my life! and he still listens to his "advisors" that have botched this so badly?
Why?

Let me explain. What comes around Goes around.
The activity is plan to develop by chaos theory, let the fraud and deception rise to the surface as it now is for all to see. The president is very well advised by the best minds in science and the scientific process.

You like to play lets argue and I'll take all the funds for my pet project.
This is exactly what Griffin did with Congress(the President lost all hope and let it ride) and when programs got canceled to fund CxP he let the folks argue and whoever was the most corrupt the funded went to CxP. The following is why the complete CxP budget was managed at a Field Center and not out of HQ. Yep the CxP procurement was the black hole to fund CxP so Zero oversight and regulation could not take place. 100s if not thousands of program and projects in the signed budget were canceled overnight yearly for 5 years.

Congress was very aware of this but could do nothing. Now you see the results. The pork barrel is in plain site as special interest state reps writing protective legislation for FY2010. They know when Oct 1st 2010 the game is over, they are trying to do whatever to purchase time, lie, steal, cheat, wiretap, corrupt media tactics, public media influence pedaling who name it they are doing it.

seven criteria by which spending can be classified as "pork":
Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
Not specifically authorized;
Not competitively awarded;
Not requested by the President;
Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
Serves only a local or special interest.

So what do you see happening at the hearings.
Snow Jobs from the best the special interest can bring, from the people stating the plan is garbage.

This is so fricking funny it is mind boggling

have a wonderful CxP day!

My one and only response to Gary01:

Take a look at your own history and review the derogatory remarks that you've made about the President, congress, and everyone else in the system. It must be very comforting to believe that you're smarter than everyone else. And look at how often you made declarative statements, instead of qualifying your words as opinion. And then you imply that the press knows what it's talking about when reporting on space issues! Get serious.

Bottom line, if you're going to use terms like "sucks" when talking about the President, and you can't even spell properly (you're not your) then don't be surprised when you get an unfavorable reaction.

Cartoons? There was only one... (Since numbers seem to be so importannt to you.)
"Can't see the wood for the trees "

"So Holdren keeps repeating Aerospace's numbers even after Aerospace sent a letter to Congress saying that their numbers have no basis for an independent cost and schedule analysis and were for option comparison only."
I repeat:
"Holdren is talking about the financial idiocy of the POR. The numbers he is talking about are those developed by Augustine NOT Aerospace. You will note also that the POR costings are not being contested by Giffords in her correspondence with Aerospace. But hey don't let reality get in the way of pointless comment."
To clarify; the Augustine Committee owns those numbers Chairwoman Giffords attempts to drive a wedge between Augustine and Aerospace are an exercise in futility. Moreso because actually now your President owns those numbers. But to play your game: those numbers refer to Commercial not to the POR until Q7. The answer is telling.
Re Q9 Let me finish the quote for you:
"Aerospace did not perform a traditional parametric or grass-roots Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) or Independent Schedule Estimate (ISE) for the Constellation Program or its major elements.
[continues]
"In order to perform an ICE/ISE for the Constellation Program or its major elements, Aerospace would require {dumploads of data that the POR could not provide because it was disasterously behind schedule and no one knew if it would work properly... Oh! and more money and time please!} [I paraphrase!]
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1310
refers.
Finally I refer you to the synthesis:
"But finding the solutions to Constellation’s [Ares-I] technical problems will likely have further impact on the program’s cost and schedule." 4.3.2 Constellation Development. p58 et seq. Final Report.

"Well, we certainly didn’t need an independent commission to tell us that."
Alas they did!

Since you like cartoons:
http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/jparker/uploaded_images/090624-724169.jpg

"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."
Sorry Libby but your President has other Science issues than HSF. LIKE SAVING THE PLANET!

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

I only wish that your political representatives had one hundredth of his learning. Heck I wish that all politicians had at least an A-Level (YMMV)in a Science subject!

However I agree he should be watched. Otherwise I predict a golden decade for Helio and Plasma Physics! We might even see some kick ass fusion initiatives and perhaps even a return to NTR!
Try to look on the bright side!

"The President is not well liked for his policy and planning decisions in general (beyond the space program) based on a poll this week..."
This one?
http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/polls/5960

ELAS3 you are doing a good job of proving my point for me. I just told you Orion is moving along and still marching towards a 2014 IOC and you follow it with the statement "I think the question is do we simply continue the investment to get a quite mediocre vehicle significantly later than originally planned" - What are you basing this on? Rumor and innuendo? For the record, the original vehicle in the original goals was to send 4 (not 6) astronauts to the Moon and beyond. Later on Orion was asked if they could support flights to station and add two crew members (which would also help with being able to serve as a crew return/rescue vehicle). As Ares I struggled with performanace issues, Orion had to go back down to 4. But the original goal was 4. So Orion has actually gone back to the original goal of 4 crew, not significantly less than the original goal as you claim. Orion as a Crew Rescue Vehicle is a waste of time and effort and it pains me to say that. But why bother at all?

As the man pointed out, programs conceived with proper review often fall short. Clearly time to get back on the original track.

REVISED, AFTER PROPER REVIEW (sigh)

As the man pointed out, programs conceived WITHOUT proper review often fall short. Clearly time to get back on the original track.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/cnn-poll-majority-disapprove-of-obama-for-first-time/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+trblogposts+(Hottest+blogosphere+items)&fbid=siTbDWhEl9-

I've no doubt that Holdren is very intelligent, just no practical experience.

We are discussing the human space flight program. If Obama and Holdren want the HSF budget for other purposes then I hope we can fend them off.

Obama is going to save the planet? So far I think he is not doing too well on his own country and his allies. Americans have a pretty dim view of him and based on my recent return from overseas, our allies are very concerned about the weaknesses he shows and the continuing excuses he makes for my country.

The poll you cite is a left wing semi-radical group that appears to always find in favor of the Obama administration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_Points_Memo
I'd rather go with some people who are a bit less biased.

What is really funny (if it were not so tragic) is that the original Griffin report:

http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/aim_for_mars/study-report.pdf

was far more like the current Obama plan than Constellation ever was...a step-by-step plan for
progressive human exploration which deferred landings until after interplanetary cruise capabilities were developed:

First priority, a CEV to replace Shuttle's crew to orbit capability, to be done prior to shutting down Shuttle, before 2010. But the Griffin plan was already throwing away the fly-back vehicle.

Studies to identify which CEV and HLV booster configurations are best. Although the Griffin plan was already alluding to the SRB based Ares 1 and a 'different' HLV.

Next, develop the HLV.

Develop interplanetary cruise capability and consider modules based on ISS.

Maintain ISS well beyond 2016.

Defer all lunar and planetary landing vehicles....an exploration architecture that places humans in lunar and Mars orbit substantially before surface landings are contemplated.

Trips to lunar orbit, Lagrange points, NEOs, Mars vicinity and Martian moons.

Use robots to develop surface infrastructure.

Later, human landings.

It was actually well-done; it is a great plan to go with Obama's crude outline. I wonder how Griffin and Constellation got so off-track?

Develop advanced propulsion for the interplanetary cruise.

Griffin's and Constellation's primary errors were in sticking with the SRB-based CEV launch vehicle which had not been adequately analyzed or traded against other alternatives, and then deciding on a too-large CEV capsule before defining the requirements for such a vehicle. These two critical steps were done ass-backwards. He derailed the entire program and it never had a chance.

So here's the real story:

Lockheed can have an Orion capsule ready in 2-3 years if NASA backs off, stops changing requirements, and let's LM do what they know how to do.
ATK basically has the first stage done - if NASA backs off and stops changing requirements, it'll take about a year to wrap it up.
Pratt & Whitney can have their 2nd stage engine wrapped up in 2-3 years also, if (you guessed it), NASA backs off.
Unfortunately, the 2nd stage, which NASA has taken on itself instead of contracting out (Boeing is build-to-print, and has been painfully waiting for something to build), and is basically a tank and some tubes and valves, is so far behind, it alone is what's pushing the date for Ares out so far.

Another point: If NASA backs off, all those contractors could probably get their products out the door for a significant percentage less than they're having to charge because NASA second guesses every nut, bolt, washer design, and changes the rules on them every other week.

And here's the depressing tidbit: The "experts" in NASA have long gone - that's why those left are second guessing every contractor decision. There's nobody left in NASA who has the real scientific knowledge - 2nd stage is case in point. Most of those in NASA today are slaves to the paper pushing required for shuttle, and are incapable of thinking "outside the box," as everyone painfully learned during the Ares I-X campaign. Look at the recent report on NASA labs -- if someone studied the personnel at NASA they'd probably come to the same conclusion.

We used to joke that we couldn't get back to the moon if we tried, due to all the government red tape. Looks like it's no joke. Doesn't look like NASA will be able to launch themselves out of a wet paper bag for a couple decades.

Very sad.

"And here's the depressing tidbit: The "experts" in NASA have long gone - that's why those left are second guessing every contractor decision. There's nobody left in NASA who has the real scientific knowledge "

I think there are still some of us within NASA left who do know how to do the job-we have done it in past programs and we have not left yet. But I do not think you have any of that experience working in Constellation or Orion today.

The inexperience that was given command of the program at the outset so screwed up on process and requirements that it has made everything much more difficult.

What has been most surprising is that despite all of the problems, delays, and failure to meet goals and schedule, very few of the managers have been replaced. They just keep on...it has not helped.

The senior managers responsible for placing these neophytes - themselves were almost all neophytes - and they must have figured that if they were thrown in, sink or swim, they would figure it out. But without the leadership of the Apollo era or the pressure of time and schedule, and without the availability of excess dollars, really they just fell flat on their faces.

A rocket launcher real story:
This IS NASA LOL!
And here's the depressing tidbit: The "experts" in NASA have long gone - that's why those left are second guessing every contractor decision. There's nobody left in NASA who has the real scientific knowledge - 2nd stage is case in point. Most of those in NASA today are slaves to the paper pushing required for shuttle, and are incapable of thinking "outside the box," as everyone painfully learned during the Ares I-X campaign. Look at the recent report on NASA labs -- if someone studied the personnel at NASA they'd probably come to the same conclusion.

I agree this is the case with in CxP no question about this. It has been studied over and over again. Finally the President Zeroed the CxP budget and then the crying started.

It a good thing ESMD actually did something and has made it to the moon with two spacecraft, However SMD had to help them along the way.
If you know anything about NASA no experts had WBS# on CxP because you only needed one expert, Dr Griffin was your expert.

Have a wonderful CxP day.

Thank you. Although March 22nd, 2010 seems a little out of date, I genuinely don't know the ins and outs of your various think tanks and whatnot. Indeed the the link I provided was merely the latest I could find.
However they merely commissioned the poll
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_511.pdf
This is a left leaning polling organisation?
I would also draw your attention to
http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-approval-obama One must therefore assume that with the notable exception of Rasmussen all the other polling organisations are leftward leaning too!
Goodness! I consider myself educated.
But one wonders what President Bush's approval rating was, post Katrina?

However I still take issue with the idea that in order to be a Presidential Adviser one needs to be a Rocket Engineer like say, Dr Mike Griffin. Building rockets may be grand but in the grand scheme of things it is just one aspect of the scientific challenges we will face in the coming decades.

"If Obama and Holdren want the HSF budget for other purposes then I hope we can fend them off."
How about the general public? Bearing in mind of course that Obama has already boosted the NASA budget and is attempting to correct the profligacy of the previous Administration. Under this new plan there will be MORE Americans in space than under the POR with the ISS at the bottom of the Pacific.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1267289/Four-Americans-dont-trust-Obama-approval-ratings-soaring-overseas.html

And if we are talking Left and Right the Daily Mail is WAY to the Right. It seems that even media bias doesn't affect honest polling!

Personally I think future historians will zero in on the Horowitz-Thiokol connection.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2006/02/vse-progress-then-vs-now.html

Perhaps they are changing because we keep getting differnt marching orders from our boss the President? Perhaps NASA is changing those requirements because they got them wrong in the first place? Or should we just let go so we get something out the door fast and never mind the increased life cycle costs we will endure because you made something that is difficult to operate (see Boeing and ISS for a data point on that one). Really what you are saying is that we at NASA are too stupid to figure out what we need and we should just let you enlightned contractors tell us what we need (again that worked out well for NASA on ISS). Ideally NASA should be able to write high level functional requirements and then work with the contractors on the actual implementation as a team. Unfotunately our past experience with Boeing has been that they don't do the research to understand how we do operations (so they can then design a system that works with our operations philosphy), they don't involve us in the design and when it turns out their design choices are bad ones then instead of fixing it they try to explain it away and force operations to work harder to overcome their poor design. So past history encourages NASA to write detailed requirements because that is the only way you get something that is easy to use. Never ceases to amaze me that NASA contractors think that insulting and ignoring the customer is good for buisness.

"very few of the managers have been replaced."

Who would you replace them with? Who inside NASA has experience leading and managing a multi-billion dollar development program? There isn't anybody to replace them with. Unless Mr Bolden is willing to go outside the agency to find experienced government development experts at this level anybody they would get from within NASA would be even less experienced then those doing the job now.

I disagree.

There are a lot of people who have some experience, and a few people with a fair amount of experience going back to the Apollo era. Some of us did the studies that established the architecture, design and systems of X-38, ISS, Shuttle, and a few people are left who did Skylab and earlier vehicles.

You've repeatedly said there is no one at NASA who has any development experience. This is not true.

The management in charge of Constellation did not look beyond their immediate friends, mainly out of operations and a handful out of ISS, but none of these people were there and participated during the early phases and development phases of the programs.

There is also no reason why NASA should not have looked for appropriate experience from industry and the military.

Most of the Apollo leadership was brought in from outside.

The best people should have been put in charge.

Flight Directors are nice people too, but with little to no applicable experience for the job at hand. Adding more flight directors (and astronauts too) did not give them any more applicable experience. If the program had gotten off on a good footing, then the Flight Directors would have had meaningful work in the near future too. As it is, we stand a good chance of no one having any meaningful work for a long time.

I am not talking about design experience. I am talking about progam management experience. Two development programs in the last 40 years is not enough to develop the experience and knowledge to run a program this big. I agree there is no reason NASA shouldn't have looked outside and in fact it should be mandatory until NASA actually creates a human resource development program to grow the people. Unfortunately NASA has a huge not developed here cultural problem that prevents them from seeing their own failures.

Much of the experience still in-house includes program management in addition to design.

There are lots of in-house available resources that have not been tapped because the managers who are in place conveniently overlook any experience which might not have originated in 'their' organization.

'Their' organization varies from individuals, who select and promote others based solely on personal allegiances, to organizations like 'operations', which is most clearly seen in Constellation where one flight director was promoted to leader and immediately surrounded himself with a bunch of other flight directors, none of who had the requisite or appropriate experience, to centers - which is where I completely agree with you, there is a serious cultural 'not invented here' problem - which is the reason that Gen Bolden, and Mr Gerstenmaier and Capt Coats and others should have taken the initiative to start changing out some of the people at the top of Constellation in order to start establishing a functional organization.