Task Force on Space Industry Workforce and Economic Development

"The commission would have until August 15, 2010 to finalize its report, and would be dissolved within three years, the memo notes."

After the delay tactics and stalling perpetuated by the Augustine Panel and its useless recommendations, the Space Coast is getting burned out on these panels and commissions.

What a complete mess the space program is now in. Defend all you want, but this is nothing more than the result of poor leadership in our nation at the moment. It will be very easy for the next President to become a hero in a very short time.

Typical Washington DC response

The focus is on KSC because this is nothing more than a transparent attempt to keep support in Florida for the 2012 election. This has nothing to do with the space program and everything to do with political expediency. This administration wants to kill the human space flight program and is trying to contain the collateral damage.

Sounds oddly familiar. Oh, yes, now I remember....

Enter the bureaucrats

Chancellor Valorum: The point is conceded. Will you defer your motion, to allow a commission to explore the validity of your accusations?

Oy vey. This is passing from a real life tragedy into a badly played imitation of art.

Quite a parade of entitlement cry babies here. Do you not yet realize that Constellation was never going to produce anything of value while destroying everything in its path? That it would end US HSF for the next generation?

I think it would be worth downsizing NASA just to get rid of you biased soreheads.

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man."
Mark Twain

One would think Obama would have studied these problems before he announced his empty plan for NASA. Amateurs are ruining the country.

Let me clarify, I meant that a commission, another "panel" or "task forice" is the typical Washington DC response

And the Do-Nothing Congress is finally out-(un)done by the Do-Nothing Obama Administration. Let's study the problem. We promise we will do something...trust us. I hope we get some change out of this. Change we can believe in? I never believed in it to begin with. Same old political smokescreen, and voters keep falling for it. See ya later, Obama. Lame duck by end of this year.

To Spangle way - This isn't just about ending the Constellation program, it's about not putting anything in its place. Despite Obama's empty and disingenuous words at the KSC speech about going to Mars and an asteroid, NASA has not gotten any direction to implement a human space flight program beyond low Earth orbit. The Administration is turning over transportation to and from the ISS to commercial, and have neither provided the budget nor the direction to do anything else except conduct a vague, unfocused technology development effort.

President Obama rarely talks about the space program and seemed rather irritated that he had to address the folks at NASA last April.

Congress needs to stand up and take charge on this issue because its pretty clear that NASA is at the bottom of the Obama administration's priority list except for the fact that its causing him some political trouble in a critical voting state like Florida.

Marcel F. Williams

To spacesupporter - The FY2011 budget doesn't look vague or unfocused to me. Here's a list of what's funded, borrowed from another thread:

- Orion super-lite crew return vehicle/beyond LEO technology base
- a line of small HSF robotic precursors
- a line of large HSF robotic precursors
- ensuring the Shuttle completes the ISS
- keeping the ISS to 2020+ instead of dumping it in 2016
- adding capabilities for the ISS
- actually vigorously using the ISS
- repairing NASA's Earth observation budget
- repairing NASA's Aeronautics budget
- increasing the human research budget by 42%
- a strong set of exploration technology demonstration missions for use of space resources, propellant depots, closed-loop life support, automated rendezvous and docking, EVAs and servicing, and many others
- heavy lift and propulsion research and development
- U.S. production of something like the RD-180 engine
- modernization of KSC and nearby facilities
- improved commercial cargo
- a new commercial crew effort
- a repaired and even vigorous general space technology portfolio

What would you suggest we do within the expanded, but still limited, NASA budget ceiling, given what we know now?

If you have a better idea about where to spend limited funds to get us out into the Solar System sustainably, please present them. Then we can have an actual productive conversation. All I saw in your post was "empty and disingenuous" anti-Obama distortions.

So Spangleway, just where do you get your information that Constellation was not ever going to produce anything of value? Had it been funded properly, it would in fact have us on a course to the moon and beyond way sooner than whatever course it is that we are now on. Many, many tests have already been performed, some as recent as last week, and one big one is coming this week. Lots of metal has been cut. Doesn't sound like you have any of the right information to be making your disparaging comments. Since you like Mark Twain, perhaps you should think about one of the other Twain quotes. "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

From my understanding, the reason there hasn't been a substantial policy towards a BEO mission is that we don't have the technology yet- for example, the current Mars Reference Mission Plan requires an unfeasibly large amount of mass, many times greater than that of the ISS. That is the whole point of the emphasis on R&D, particularly through the Flagship Technology Demonstration Program (which is the one thing that I hope survives out of all this mess).

NASA is not a job program. NASA is an agency with a mission to boldly go where no man has gone before.

Having a giant workforce dedicated to manpower-hungry rockets is not a good thing.

As part of following the vision, we all need to look for the solutions that get the job done more efficiently, not solutions that cost more and deliver less.

And we need to set goals that are far reaching enough that we'll start employing the same amount of people but this time in a productive manner.

Well, either that or fight over pork and proudly slush around in the muck of mediocrity (!), same as we've been doing for the last 20 years.

Our choice.

Oriongrunt, you give the argument away with "Had it been funded properly..." The short answer is, it wasn't funded at the level it required and it wasn't going to be. If you think it was, you're living in fantasy land.

The Augustine committee report lays out what funding was needed to fix Constellation and what it would buy. First, $3 billion more per year to bring the first lunar landing back to 2028 from "the 2030s, if ever." Second, $2-3 billion more per year to continue ISS. (Without ISS, Orion has nowhere to go and nothing to do for a decade. Also, destroying ISS after only 5 years of underfunded operation should have been a firing offense for whoever proposed it, supported it, or even went along with it.) Then another $1 billion or so per year to put back all the money Constellation stole from the rest of NASA. After all that, all you get is a landing on the Moon - no base, no resource utilization, just another set of flags and footprints. And one other thing - the death of NASA HSF.

You should all be giving President Obama your thanks for saving you from your own folly. But no one ever does that, of course.

take your better-faster-cheaper schtick and schtick it where the sun don't shine!

1 for Shuttle Ops (0 CxP & 0 Merchant7):

Preventing disastrous offshore spills may require space-program diligence
Increasingly high-tech programs may require safety redundancies galore

They did not project the chance of an accident nearly as severe as the one that crippled its Gulf well. Which leaves us asking: Why not? NASA engineers would have — and designed multiple layers of redundant safety systems to deal with these hypothetical crises.

As they should. Because costs of a space flight blunder are likely to be staggering, as are the costs associated with unleashing millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf and its coastal communities. And in the energy-extraction situation, the astronomical price is not going to be assessed merely in dollars, but also in jobs, the health of the environment and public confidence in officials charged with overseeing public health and safety.

We’re talking about a need for check lists, tests and redundant reviews for every engineered part and system and analysis. Independent panels of experts might be asked to review engineering data and how they're being interpreted (can parts or systems be scaled up, for instance, and still perform as needed) by organizations — be they companies or cash-strapped government agencies — that might have an economic incentive to overlook obstacles that would increase oil-production costs or schedules. Oil-development and -production staff might have to undergo special training and all operations might have to be supervised by experts. Just as happens in running — and managing — spaceflight operations.

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

So Spangleway, just where do you get your information that Constellation was not ever going to produce anything of value? Had it been funded properly, it would in fact have us on a course to the moon and beyond way sooner than whatever course it is that we are now on...

how do you come to that conclusion?

First the funding shortfalls in Orion/Ares are not Obama's, they were Bush.

Second the program has consumed 10 billion dollars.

That is more money then Falcon 1/9, Atlas, and Delta combined have consumed to either come nearly or to flight status.

How would more money have made a difference?

Robert G. Oler

link to above article:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58855/title/Preventing_disastrous_offshore_spills_may_require_space-program_diligence

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

A-men !

"The Administration is turning over transportation to and from the ISS to commercial,"

And what exactly is so wrong with letting "commericial" guys take over moving cargo/humans to/fron ISS ? It frees up billions for NASA to do R&D it desperately needs to realistically get out of LEO. You do realize NASA outsourced much of its Shuttle operations to the "commercial" guys (i.e., United Space Alliance) long ago right ?

".... and have neither provided the budget nor the direction to do anything else except conduct a vague, unfocused technology development effort."

Unfocused effort ? I've already seen quite a bit of detail on 4 flagship technology demo proposals (including on orbit fueling), so obviously you don't have the facts to support that argument. But I guess you'd rather have more "focused" goals like "Ares I to LEO by 2012" and "Ares V to the moon by 2018."

And what exactly is so wrong with letting "commericial" guys take over moving cargo/humans to/fron ISS

DUH
profit over safety for the cheaper plan, which rock have you been hiding under?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58855/title/Preventing_disastrous_offshore_spills_may_require_space-program_diligence

You do realize NASA outsourced much of its Shuttle operations to the "commercial" guys (i.e., United Space Alliance) long ago right?

NASA HSF Shuttle operations folks are much more involved with daily contractor operations activity than a typical government contractor, much less a commercial ots provider.

If you're uninformed, read the article. There's lots more to it than that - but it conveys a sense of it very well.

Otherwise, if your intent is to convice the workforce that your statement is truth - they already know first-hand that's a bs statement, so what's your point trying to spin it?

Padmé: "Politics is an ancient and noble calling. Without politicians our societies would descend into anarchy and chaos."
Obi-Wan: "I thought they'd done that already. It certainly looked that way the last time I was in the Senate."
Padmé: "I'm not claiming the system is perfect. Obviously there's room for improvement, when—"

All that's to come and everything under the sun is in tune
but the sun is eclipsed by the moon

"And what exactly is so wrong with letting "commericial" guys take over moving cargo/humans to/fron ISS? It frees up billions for NASA to do R&D"

Say what? The billions of dollars were (notionally) freed up by shutting down US HSF for at least a decade, and outsourcing it to the Russians. (If you think the money in the budget for COTS is going to pay for man-rated vehicles, you've got another think coming.)

You do realize NASA outsourced much of its Shuttle operations to the "commercial" guys (i.e., United Space Alliance) long ago right ?

NOT

that's a severe semantic twist - government contractors are not the same as commercial vendors & ya might want to try doing some homework:

Shuttle Contractors Under Scrutiny
February 05, 2003

At the same time, NASA has increasingly relied on private contractors as it trimmed costs, shifting to private companies work previously handled by federal employees, including much of the shuttle and unmanned space programs.

"I don't think it's been a great improvement," said Robert Park, a University of Maryland expert on the space program.

In 2001, a NASA audit criticized the space agency's oversight of the United Space Alliance's shuttle safety operations.

"I wouldn't base my long-term growth prospects on NASA business, that's for sure," Mr Friedman said.

The Associated Press

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/RiskManagement/shuttleContractorsUnderScrutiny.html

"DUH
profit over safety for the cheaper plan, which rock have you been hiding under?"

Hilarious. It has been said over and over again that NASA will have engineering and safety insight/oversight in this way of doing business--these companies won't be operating in a vacuum. NASA has run this model with multi billion dollar satellites and I don't see too much concern from those spacecraft customers that their investment is taking on too much risk. By the way, did you just use the word "DUH" ? Too funny.

"Say what? The billions of dollars were (notionally) freed up by shutting down US HSF for at least a decade, and outsourcing it to the Russians. (If you think the money in the budget for COTS is going to pay for man-rated vehicles, you've got another think coming.)"

Ares I wasnt' flying for nearly a decade, and in the interim we were relying on the Russians anyway. So what's your point ?

So just how short is the NASA budget for a "man-rated" COTS vehicle ? I'm dying to know......

"So just how short is the NASA budget for a "man-rated" COTS vehicle ?"

Nobody knows a reliable number (and, as ex_navy points out, you can't depend on any numbers you hear out of the NASA procurement process). I myself wouldn't trust any number - we'll only know for sure when it's done, is my take.

But it's going to be quite a few billion, and that's not in the current NASA budget.