Welcome to Scott Horowitz's Parallel Universe

Excellent article.

Oh really, Mr. Horowitz? Just like the CxP architecture had nothing to do with technical/programmatic issues and was politically motivated and being driven by a few people in NASA's administration?

Horowitz and Griffin are both personally responsible for highjacking the VSE and the ESAS and foisting their personal rocket concept on NASA. As a result, we blew the one chance we had to successfully implement that program. In Horowitz' case, his immediate former employer stood to gain billions from this decision. He has no credibility and even less integrity.

Humm
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/376810main_LobbyistContactDisclosureFormHorowitz-1.pdf

makes you wonder.
Doc Lobbyist non-aerospace goofy astronut.

Best wishes in Park City with Doc's Aerospace. Boo hoo Hoo my program got zeroed. How it feel dumber then dumb, I remember you and cooke smiling before Congress changed awarding the CxP contract full of no requirements and hot air.

have a good day on Mars!

he may be right about the who, but the GOP spin for a why is just a side benefit

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/nasa-creates-gigantic-vibrator/712

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

http://flametrench.flatoday.net/2009_08_11_archive.html

A skewed way of looking at things.

Constellation did have a real opportunity to firmly establish a new direction for US human space flight.

In order to do it, it required having the Orion capsule on a solid footing for launch within 4-5 years after they went in that direction, with a launch most likely on a modified version of one of the already existing commercial launch vehicles. That was all they needed to do in the first five years. Moon landings and lots of other things might have been great to consider for the future, but the only important near term goal was to replace Shuttle.

Even if there was some logic to develop an Ares SRB for eventual use on the Ares 5, and possibly for some interim capability to boost an Orion capsule, it should never have been the defining element of the new direction.

The Orion/Ares 1 architecture did not close. The payload was too heavy. The booster could not carry the requirement.

Their architecture required new vehicles, continuously changing direction and requirements, and Griffin, Horowitz, Hanley, Geyer were chasing their tails. There was clear direction from somewhere, no doubt Horowitz, recently from ATK, and from Griffin. Hanley and Geyer refused to speak up honestly on behalf of NASA, the American people or themselves. Just smile, 'look professional' try to hang on to their jobs.

So more than 3 years and $10 billion into it, there was no doubt the situation would be investigated and found out as Augustine did.

The Constellation guys had the opportunity to establish a new direction. Instead they may very well have wound up killing US human space flight.

The only opportunity at this point is to get behind Ms. Hutchison and have Congress do what is right. Mr. Obama has shown his colors, and just as per his originally expressed plan, his goal is to defer the decision on how to proceed to his successor. By then it could be too late.

What? All these space architecture decisions are political? Who knew?

Horowitz is over playing the political card himself a little bit. I think there is a lot more to the story than a handful of political animals trying to punish red states.

We are seeing manifestations of disagreements among politicos and bean-counters that pre-date Obama or Augustine.

Obama just had to take his time and chose a side, and he did. Now the people that he needs to march in step are doing it. It's not some conspiracy to go nowhere.

America needs a way to keep NASA well-funded on on track long term so we don't get these expensive changes in direction with each new administration.

"The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense."
- Tom Clancy

"The President has kept all of the promises he intended to keep."
- Clinton aide George Stephanopolous speaking on Larry King Live

"We're going to turn this team around 360 degrees."
- Jason Kidd, upon his drafting to the Dallas Mavericks

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

"Every time NASA has gone down the “technology development” path without a clearly defined mission to focus “technology development”, the result has been the same: no operational system gets developed, and NASA’s top-line budget becomes a target for OMB and Congress and gets reduced by 25%."

That about sums up the BO space program. No goal/destination, no plan, and no schedule.

does this regulation apply to SRBs?

The process is part of work the arsenal is doing to find a more environmentally friendly way than burning to dispose of solid propellant, said Paul Turner, associate director for propulsion technology for the Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center on Redstone. Environmental regulations no longer allow the chemical to be burned, Turner said.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/05/redstone_official_contractors.html

It's easy not to change direction when your not going anywhere.

NASA is no longer at the forefront of a noble endevor. It hasn't been for a long time. NASA has it's snout buried deep in the trough and is content to get fatter until the sledge comes down.

Keep sending money! Oink!

I have to keep in mind that NASAWatch is a blog as well as an information source. It's a privilege that Keith has provided us to gain access to the information he collects. He also provides us the opportunity to leave comments. The cost of subscription is that we have to read his commentary and accept the editorial layout and structuring of news stories. So with that, thanks Keith.

I disagree that Doc is in a parallel universe. Saying so is a tactic to discredit anything he has to say. It's easy to pick one of his points and rant on it. How about we logically address each point and try to understand what he has to say?

As a guy on the outside, I'm thinking that if this guy and folks like Crippen, Lovell, Musgrave, and Armstrong (Flippin' ARMSTRONG!) is saying that Obama's plan has some detrimental aspects to it, I'm going to listen. No matter how they get painted and labeled.

Very good write up and summary of this cancellation fiasco. Thanks Doc.

I had thought about responding to some of the critics but frankly you did a much better job.

some good points, some silly points. but the fact is that the shuttle architecture was political. the constellation was political squared. ATK placed the right people in the right spots and jobbed the selection. I have no doubt that obamaists would love to punish red states but in this case it doesn't wash. a 5 segment SRB is so ridiculous it rivals the lie told about recovering the spent solids to make them cheaper. If Obama really wanted to punish a red state and reward a blue state he'd just move the vast majority of solid propulsion work from ATK to Aerojet. ATK shot themselves in the foot with their reliance on the shuttle gravy train in perpetuity. luckily for them they sell a ton of small arms propellant

And that's the beauty of the Obama plan. By committing itself to building nothing and going nowhere, it sets up the NASA budget for-- guilt free-- deep cuts by Congress in the near future.

If you really don't like NASA, then that's a good thing. However, if you treasure our Federal manned space program then its a recipe for disaster.

Marcel F. Williams

To Backwaters: word.

A good start might be to address the claim by Dr. Horowitz about COTS cargo flights to ISS estimated around $45k/lb versus Ares I at $32k/lb. A roughly 50% cost difference is substantial! This claim alone is basis for a good counter-argument, disparaging or not.