Senate Opposition to Obama Space Plan On The Increase

Steve Cook made some good comments about CxP recently at an AIAA meeting in Huntsville.. Read the full text here-

http://nasaengineer.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3

I would be troubled also.

Newton and the flu virus will be interesting to study.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704250104575238591153688422.html
For years, NASA program managers typically allowed Lockheed, Alliant Techsystems and some other large contractors to avoid setting aside contract funds to cover contingencies, as they were expected to do, for the possibility that big-ticket programs ended up being cancelled or restructured, said government and industry officials.

While the policy may have technically violated some federal acquisition laws and regulations, it allowed NASA and its contractors to try to accelerate high-profile programs by spending more on development and testing than otherwise would have been available.

But that changed abruptly in the wake of President Obama's proposal to shut down Constellation. Now, NASA is warning the two largest Constellation contractors they will be held responsible for reserving or setting aside enough dollars—as part of their annual management of contract funds—to meet potential termination liabilities.
....

Mr. Bolden told a Senate appropriations subcommittee last month that NASA is merely reminding contractors about their responsibility for termination liabilities. "It's the company's determination of what level of risk" it is willing to incur, "whether [executives] put aside funds or ... they assume they are not going to need them," he said.

The current clash stems in part from NASA's tradition of giving the Johnson Space Center --where U.S. astronauts are based -- extra latitude in running programs. According to industry and government officials, the Houston center frequently wasn't required to comply strictly with the same accounting and program-management rules that applied to other parts of the agency.

That partly explains why many Constellation managers consistently relied on assurances from some NASA managers that the agency would step in and cover liabilities in the unlikely event termination became an issue.

"For some manned programs, that was standard procedure," according to one industry official familiar with the details. "If you suddenly change the precedent, you could shut down large parts of NASA."

The new attitude at NASA headquarters ratchets up pressure on lawmakers to approve large parts of the White House's proposals, because that's a way to keep funds flowing for development and testing.

Hooray for Congress. It is nice to see bi-partisan support for NASA and Constellation. Hopefully we will not be dependent upon the Russians for very long.

Even if Constellation had not been challenged by this administration, we were going to be dependent on the Russians for "a very long time". The fact is that we have planned to depend on the Russians for years. It has become politically expedient to make that an un-American policy. Never mind that they sure saved our bacon after the Columbia accident.

I think the Ares I is at the core of the problem for the Ares architecture because I believe that it was never designed to be a vehicle attractive to private industry. That's important, IMO, because its one of the fundamental keys to significantly lowering cost. And I just can't see private companies routinely launching tourist on top of a solid rocket boosters into orbit.

Over the next 20 years, space tourism is likely to have a much higher flight rate than any NASA missions to the Moon, Mars, or the ISS. And such high demand could significantly reduce the cost of rocket engines and other expensive components related to these flights. NASA could benefit from these cost reductions if they used the same rocket engines and even the same core booster as private commercial rockets involved in the space tourism industry.

That's why I like Boeing's new shuttle derived inline concept for shuttling people into orbit without the SRBs. With the SRBs, the core booster becomes a heavy lift vehicle that NASA can use for beyond LEO missions.

If both NASA and private industry utilized the same rocket engines and core booster, then this could end up being the-- space DC-3- that finally dramatically reduces the cost of manned space travel. And that would be a real 'game changer'!

Marcel F. Williams

“Today’s program, what is the current administration proposing to get NASA access into space? It’s to think about a booster for five years and then make some decision about it,”..... “Fifty years later, when we know the technology, we’ve got the infrastructure and we’ve got everything … we’re going to sit around and think about it for five years and then come up with some decision? If you look at every aspect of the current administration’s proposals for space, it’s afraid. It’s afraid to commit, it’s afraid to do anything,“......“We’re not going to launch anything, we’re not going to build anything, we’re not going to do anything. We were afraid 50 years ago, but we had the will and the courage to move forward and it was simply ’Do it,’ and we did it.“
-Story Musgrave

People will disagree with that of course that support the Obama plan.

You cannot ignore that that perception is part of Obama's big problem.

The Obama plan lacks that "DO IT" drive and goals that makes things happen and get's congress behind you.

Not in the future, but now.
Now is when we need leadership and short term and long term goals that that are *worthy* of a nation born of the frontiers.

He isn't challenging us, he isn't leading us, he is managing decline.

As Neil DeGrasse Tyson said, America is fading right now.

Most unfortunate that no one will be available to save the Russian's bacon. Let us hope that will not be necessary. The ISS is too valuable an asset to play risky games.

This isn't so much "opposition on the increase" as it is the same 6-7 congressional representatives touting the same opposition they have been for the past few months.

~HotShotX

Folks:

The republicans don't give a damn about the space program or constellation. They didn't care about it when they were "in power". All they care about is throwing a monkey wrench into the present administration any way they can. If they win this battle with NASA you might as well throw in the towel for American human space flight and exploration.

Sour losers and cry baby's is what they are.

Sad but true.

Go commercial space flight!

Americas last hope.

tinker

Shelby, Hutchison, Mikulski, etc. The same names over and over. I guess that means every other dem is behind the president and every other republican is against him. By default.

In total that must mean the president wins.

“That system could lob the Orion around the moon”

Ares V, Ares I+, DIRECT, whatever. All different but apparently alternatives. Which can only be true if you don't really know what you want to do or why.

Destination is a poor substitute for purpose.

The hypocrisy of legislators of both parties is breathtaking. To refuse to adequately fund NASA for over forty years and keep us in low earth orbit and then now pretending everything was fine until Obama became president and screwed up the space program is amazing even to a cynical guy like me. Of course it is all right to criticize parts of Obama's plan - I don't like everything myself. Just don't be lazy with the facts and pretend there has not been a problem since the early 1970s.

Tinker, you've got it exactly right.
It's time to turn over LEO to commercial operators, and focus NASA on deep space missions, starting with technology test beds that will give us the capability to do them.
Go commercial!!!

Go real commercial without a dime of my taxpayer money. Unless Elon et al are willing to give us equity in their company and a say in the running of it. Or Presidient Obama is willing to give me 250 million dollars to start my own private buisness so I can become more wealthy too.

Agreed.

All these people saying "go commercial" like it's some magic phrase and a solve all incantation, shouting it like Harry Potter waving a wand do not seem to understand that it's not very commercial at all when huge gubmint funds from our tax moneys will still be required for them to even just get in line to be in the HSF game at all.

Oh yeah, they have never even orbited a single human being for even a single orbit. But let's bet the entire farm on them anyways.

Frank,

I agree which is sad that the new policy was rolled out so poorly. The more I think about it, the more I think this entire fight could have been avoided.

As Armstrong pointed out, usually a proposed program is studied and analyzed before being approved. Constellation went through that, but not this new commercial approach. So far, the only reason I can think of is that those pushing it didn't want it to undergo any analysis before becoming approved which makes it look like they had something to hide. That is sad.

ex_navy:

Better $250 million to Spacex (a mere pittance) to support development of an entire launch system then a blank check to Boeing, ATK and LockMart for "promises". Also, "equity" has killed all other commercial space endeavors dead or lead to heinous cost overruns in the past.

CessnaDriver:

Don't forget that every piece of space hardware and there launch systems have been made by commercial companies. But in the past those companies have treated NASA like they treat the Department of Defence. Like "How can we milk that cow for all she's worth. I mean, they need us!". Well, we don't need them or their attitude for the future of human spaceflight. Look the way ATK reacted when the cows rebeled! Went whining to their DOD buddies (after they threatened to raise prices on them).

Elon Musk already was a billionaire. He could easily have retired at the age of thirty. Instead, he chose to give his adopted country a chance to lead the world in space industrialization.

Are both you guys republican plants?

tinker

For Frank and all the other ones on this forum that scream "Go Commercial", what do you mean by that? There is no commercial LEO in this budget. It is just NASA giving money to a private company. There is no commercial service provided for a fixed price in a competitive market here. That is commercial. Come on guys just call it what it is...seed money for some private companies to attempt to topple the LM/Boeing/USA/ULA towers in hopes that prices come down with no drop in quality or safety.

On another note, can anyone name a prominent senator/representative that is in charge of or is a ranking member of a house/senate approprations or authorization committee that supports the presidents plan?

"Better $250 million to Spacex (a mere pittance) to support development of an entire launch system"

And what do you do when their cost runs overbudget and they are the only game in town? Seems they have you over a barrel and you have very little control over the situation other than start over again.

whyisthat1:

,,, only because that's how the "milk the cow" folks have done things that way in the past? That's the whole point.

Your President has seen through their "games" and is (rightly) punishing them for it.

tinker

I don't mind turning LEO over to private companies as long as I don't have to give them my tax money-- especially to Musk who seems to be obsessed with getting tax payer money to fund his pet projects.

Marcel F. Williams

"usually a proposed program is studied and analyzed before being approved. Constellation went through that, but not this new commercial approach"

I'd like to see a serious detailed study that put forward Constellation.

The original Garriott-Griffin study of 2004, which I think was the first time the Ares rockets were proposed,

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

Were very different vehicles, on very different schedules and for considerably lower cost than what Orion and Ares turned out to be.

Specifically in order to move out of LEO quickly and expand capabilities along multiple paths, including high earth orbit servicing, NEOs and lunar and Mars orbits, and in order to develop capabilities in an economically sustainable manner, landing vehicles for the moon and/or mars were both deferred until other capabilities could be established.

So not only did no study develop the current Constellation plan, but the one real plan that was developed by some pretty competent developers, was very similar to the Obama outline, and not at all like the current Constellation-Orion-Ares-Altair 'Apollo steroid' plan at all. Constellation was where NASA went wrong.

"Are both you guys republican plants?"

Didn't know that NASAwatch was only for leftist social democrats. Actually I consider myself more libertarian in political idology then anything but I don't belong to a party and feel they are inherently bad for the United States or any country. I think Geoerge Washington had it right when he warned about the danger of parties.

"Better $250 million to Spacex (a mere pittance) to support development of an entire launch system then a blank check to Boeing, ATK and LockMart for "promises". "

Then stop calling it commercial, which it is not and is an attempt to deceive the public about what is going on, and call it what it really is, a change in the preferred governement space contractor designed to create new political and financial links between new space and the current Aministration whereby new space supports the Administration space plans and new space gets billions of tax payer money in return (note that I also acknowledge the same thing happens with current contractors and the current arbiters of space flight like Nelson and Shelby). This is not a new way of doing buisness in fact it is exactly like the old way. Just with new players.

"Also, "equity" has killed all other commercial space endeavors dead or lead to heinous cost overruns in the past."

Don't see how if all we are getting is equity ala the equity the governement got from GM and Cryslier when the government invested in them. If that plan wasn't going to kill the automakers then surely giving us equity in Space X in return for our money shouldn't hurt it. Doesn't seem to harm Airbus.

It's fine if you support the new plan but be honest about what it is. Don't call it commercial because it's not.

ex_navy:

Logged and noted about your political affiliations (or lack of). I'm with you on that one.

I define Spacex as commercial for two reasons:

- They don't consider NASA as their only customers.

- They don't consider the Department of Defence as one of their customers (yet).

Spacex will probably go "public" at some time in the future but not before they have many flights under their belts. Even when they do it will probably be limited to minority holdings.

tinker

This is awful informatics, brittle and clear. I anticipate that Everything has been declared in analytical address so that clairvoyant could get best advice and apprentice abounding things. This is one of the best blogs I accept read.diet pills