Going Nowhere and Everywhere

Too bad Gene Roddenberry isn't around to tell us how the federation got around to exploring the galaxy in the Enterprise. Maybe then we can use that template for HSF.

"The irony of US politics right now is that normally pro-business Republicans are those most hostile to Nasa’s new budget—which espouses the values of entrepreneurship and innovativeness that Republicans claim to hold dear."

This is another ignorant blanket statement.

This isn't one or the other argument.

Where are these republicans that want commercial to fail?

It isn't "hostile" to say that it's too soon for them to carry the national strategic burden of the nation in space right now.

We should do BOTH for sometimes similar but often different reasons, though complimentary to each other.

NASA is one of those special catagory federal places that is unique and irreplacable right now.
Like the US Marines. Is it that hard to understand that rationale????

This is not some grand example of right wing hypocrisy and it's getting tedious to hear it over and over again.

It doesn't mean we can't have a robust commercial too.

Simply that we cannot possibly offload what NASA does to a nacent industry that has not flown a single astronaut to orbit yet, that has not a single spacecraft to do so right now and not likely for years. We don't know. It's truly an unknown right now.

What a mess.
Perhaps this is how species die in the universe and why we have never picked up a signal from anyone else.

Extinction by inaction and politics! LOL

"MANY a hearth upon our dark globe sighs after many a vanish’d face,
Many a planet by many a sun may roll with a dust of a vanish’d race.

Raving politics, never at rest—as this poor earth’s pale history runs,—
What is it all but a trouble of ants in the gleam of a million million of suns?" -Tennyson

I agree that the White House has has not been effective at advocating for this proposal. I think it has a lot going for it, but the best explanations I've seen were written here, not given by the WH or NASA. And I think the vagueness about ultimate destinations is entirely appropriate at this time, since that will be finalized by a later President. Today we're flat on our backs (without a crew launcher) and trying to get up. You can't start running when you're still lying down.

Once we have a few good new tools in the toolbox, and some notion of how far the budget goes with those tools, we can start to define the steps to a destination, and choose one that's within reach and within budget.

"Look around you. There are lots of organizations like that, waiting to be liberated, their employees yearning to breathe free."

Welcome to the singularity.

How many times must we hear that all these 'great' plans are meeting the resistance they are because they have not been 'effectively communicated' to us?

Perhaps the plans are faring so poorly because they are poor plans.

All excellent articles, particularly Eric Sterner's.

So what is the answer?

It is really pretty simple and straightforward.

But NASA will not come up with it. With astronauts and flight directors trying to do strategic planning, and then gain total consensus, they'll be working on the detailed plan for the next half century's activities for the next 5-10 years.

We do not need the detailed to the nth degree plan. What we do need is the visionary plan, which lays out the activities for the next year, and far less detail for the next 5 years, and far less for the 5 years after than.

...President Obama's proclamation that more American astronauts will fly to the space station and Earth orbit in the next decade...

Not likely according to an astronaut's comments at a recent event I attended. Many fewer astronauts are being recruited now. About 10 every 5+ years recently due to shuttle retirement and program uncertaintity. Some hope to fly to ISS on Soyuz since it will be the only choice for years.

What we do need is the visionary plan, which lays out the activities for the next year, and far less detail for the next 5 years, and far less for the 5 years after than.

I think this is correct and you do not start by throwing out everything you have now in order to start with some new concept.

What we have in HSF today is a Shuttle system and an ISS. Develop heavy lift based on Shuttle. Develop a manned sortie vehicle based on ISS that can take people to increasing altitudes and eventually on planetary trajectories.

Those are the next steps. Those are the goals for the next five years.

Both the launcher and the sortie vehicle need to be dynamic enough that they can handle a variety of missions and there is no need to decide now whether open space, the moon, Mars or an asteroid is the first target.

Any kind of another capsule is dumb, when others are building capsules. Developing a small scale flying Shuttle mainly to make use of existing NASA aero knowledge and manpower is far more intelligent. Can the recent USAF design be modified or scaled up to a man-carrying vehicle? Base what you are doing on what you already know. NASA has either forgotten or purposely tried to throw away functioning systems every time it tries to build the next step. Use some intelligence.

NASA is not a business; it's a government program. And private commercial companies are not government programs, they're businesses.

This country needs a strong Federal manned space program to pioneer the solar system and to develop, test, and advance space technologies to enhance the human ability to pioneer the New Frontier.

But this country also needs a strong private commercial manned spaceflight industry in order to bring some novelty and innovation to the aerospace industry and to finally give private citizens and private companies access to orbit and eventually also access to the Moon and beyond.

We need both!

Marcel F. Williams

CessnaDriver:

"It isn't "hostile" to say that it's too soon for them to carry the national strategic burden of the nation in space right now."

If the "them" you refer to is commercial aerospace companies then they already are carrying the "national strategic burden" with:

- Anti-missile defense systems.
- The Joint Strike Fighter.
- Every rocket ever built by America.
- Every spacecraft ever built by America.

All build by American corporations. Many of them publicly traded. Did you know that every stage of the Saturn V was made by a different contractor? You're telling us that they are not ready now when they've been doing so for decades?

The difference now is simply that the nature of the contracts are changing... for the better. No more cost-plus contracts that encouraged the companies to over-charge the government for it's products. No more pork barreled designs hodge podged together to satisfy some damn politicians possibility for re-election. "Start ups" gave us the internet in less than a decade. Start ups like Spacex will give us access to space the same way. Heck, Elon Musk gave us Pay Pal.

He certainly has more courage than you do.

tinker

I concur with your assessment of the articles, particularly Sterners. I'm not sure what you are trying to say afterward with astronauts and flight controllers doing strategic planning?

"But, his comments came largely in response to continued Congressional prodding and still were not reflected in the prepared budget material."

No kidding!!! I'm surprised Yesman Bolden didn't say Pluto or the Sun. Either is as likely as Mars given the BO space policy. And either would have been as acceptable as Mars (to the BO administration) if it had shut-up the BO space policy critics.

BOTTOM-LINE: BO couldn't care less about human space flight - PERIOD!

"But, his comments came largely in response to continued Congressional prodding and still were not reflected in the prepared budget material."

No kidding!!! I'm surprised Yesman Bolden didn't say Pluto or the Sun. Either is as likely as Mars given the BO space policy. And either would have been as acceptable as Mars (to the BO administration) if it had shut-up the BO space policy critics.

BOTTOM-LINE: BO couldn't care less about human space flight - PERIOD!

@CessnaDriver:
"This isn't one or the other argument. ... Simply that we cannot possibly offload what NASA does to a nacent industry that has not flown a single astronaut to orbit yet, that has not a single spacecraft to do so right now and not likely for years. We don't know. It's truly an unknown right now."

Exactly! It is crazy to put so many eggs into this basket of unknowns.

I have read many many posts on this blog calling/demanding for Constellation to be killed, HSF to be stifled or ended, and NASA to be descoped or broken up (and even more reprehensible posts where commenters seemed to revile in people losing their jobs). These "NASA/Cx haters" are very vocal and robust with their views, and that's fine; it's a free country.
However, I can't help but notice that the NASA/HSF/Cx defenders are *NOT* doing the opposite; they are NOT advocating for commercial upstarts to be limited, discouraged, funds cut, etc. I have seen thread after thread where NASA defenders say they hope SpaceX (VG, Orbital, etc.) are successful, and have offered congratulations on the Falcon 9 flight.

Why is there such a difference in attitudes?
I think this difference is significant, and says a lot about the character of the individuals and the validity of their ideas.

Tinker,

I strongly disagree. I believe in the power of free markets. I'm not a Republican but I do in general think the federal government should restrict it's roles so that it can concentrate on things the constitution says it should do. That being the case I do think NASA falls under the same catagory as the Air Force. Neither is explicitly called for in the Constitution but I think both are implicit in the need for a Navy. The constitution was written before flight and spaceflight exist but the Air Force and NASA serve the same purpose as the Navy which is to give the government the ability to protect our borders from all types of external threats.

You may laugh but if you look at all the popular culture terms about spaceflight they all refer to nautical terms. Ship, Fleet, Crew, ect. Those are all nautical terms.

That being said there seems to be a misunderstanding how the government can use the free market. If a product is already existing than it's easy. The free market has created and developed it so the government can just buy it. But when a product doesn't exist like a Joint Strike Fighter, or Crewed Launcher it is much more difficult. It isn't as easy as writing a contract. The reason is the way the free market works is by many companies trying many ideas simultaneously and the customers voting with their wallets which gives immediate feedback and weeds out the poor or expensive options. This is impossible with a government contract.

So my point is that what Space X is doing is great. If they had a fully tested human launcher ready today you would get no argument from me about using them instead of a NASA owned commercially operated vehicle. The problem right now is it doesn't exist yet and are you willing to wait and risk that it may never succeed?

Visionary leaders are usually not the detail people.
They have a fundamentally different focus and philosophy.

"the Air Force and NASA serve the same purpose as the Navy which is to give the government the ability to protect our borders from all types of external threats."

what makes you think NASA serves that purpose? How does it protect the borders?

but this interested me the most

"If they had a fully tested human launcher ready today you would get no argument from me about using them instead of a NASA owned commercially operated vehicle. The problem right now is it doesn't exist yet and are you willing to wait and risk that it may never succeed? "

SpaceX is closer to getting a human capacity to LEO and servicing the space station, at a far cheaper price then NASA is with Constellation. Plus in the scheme of things there is no such thing as 'government owned commercially operated" vehicle.

There are vehicles (vessels) that are owned by the government and operated by contractors...but there is nothing commercial about them. USA or some other group could take over and completely operate the shuttle "Lock stock and astronauts" as the phrase use to be; but there would be nothing commercial about it. There would be no other customer for the launch vehicle then NASA.

Robert G. Oler

@Tinker:
"All build by American corporations. Many of them publicly traded. Did you know that every stage of the Saturn V was made by a different contractor? You're telling us that they are not ready now when they've been doing so for decades?"

Wow...is that all you think is needed to build a spacecraft? Read a few books on the history of the early U.S. space program (or even internet research will do!) and get back to us. The Saturn V - and the vast bulk of the 1960's NASA - would not have existed without the know-how, experience, and design/integration capabilities of von Braun's german rocket team. Period. And these people were (gasp!) *civil servants*.

The same tenet is true for many other elements and functions of NASA; Kraft/Kranz and the mission ops capabilities at JSC, the MSFC development team for the SSME, etc.
Sure, the contractor teams are very qualified to build hardware...but unlike, say, the military, the NASA/contractor teams are very integrated and leverage complementary skills.

Now, would we like to eliminate the cost+ contracts system? Sure! I'm all for that - but please don't confuse procurement practices with science and engineering capabilities and processes.

Going to the moon is not a order that requires much detail. Telling someone to do what they do faster, cheaper, and better, is.

So far we've been doing business the usual way and the prices for conducting any kind of manned spaceflight as such have all been equally high.
Then a man comes by and says he can do it all for a tenth of that price!

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Even after a demonstration the first question you'd normally have to ask how can his prices be so low? Is he skipping some critical design step? Is how he's doing it even safe?
The response till now has been "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
...Well, fair enough.

The second reasonable question is what have we been paying for this whole time?
I think that is a tricky one for Boeing (Even if they've snuggled up with Bigelow) because either they are cutting corners now or they've been sticking it to us this whole time.
Only now they've realized people would like to go to space on the cheap?
Its something to be explained before we do business with any of the old guard again.

At this point I think we still want to go to the moon and mars. Why not just throw a request on the table for BEO missions alongside ones for ISS and suborbital.
Lowest bidder wins.

A common complaint is that we change direction every few years.

It seems that during the previous few years, we've gone backwards and lost capability. When the VSE was announced, we had orbital flight and a space station and everything and we were looking at the next step.

"ObamaSpace" arrived when coming upon an unavoidable gap and premature ISS sea-dumping.

Hence the focus is on reestablishing that, using a different contracting scheme.

That's all it is. This private commercial semantics nonsense is beside the point. We're trying to get our access to orbit reestablished, at least to the level Russia has, and SpaceX has demonstrated their way of doing things might be able to get us there a whole lot faster. So we're taking a chance on that.

The Moon and Mars? It doesn't even matter right now. When Obama's out of office next round, the next president will probably leave his own mark on NASA and when he does, we'll be in a position again where the Moon actually is the next step.

We weren't about to start building Ares V or Altair. During the time period that Obama will be in office, the Moon is basically not even an issue.

"I have read many many posts on this blog calling/demanding for Constellation to be killed .... These "NASA/Cx haters" are very vocal ....
However, I can't help but notice that the NASA/HSF/Cx defenders are *NOT* doing the opposite;

Why is there such a difference in attitudes?"

I was never a Constellation hater, but I had serious misgivings with the program, first with the ESAS, later with the management, and finally after considerable expenditure and time, with the lack of any substantial, visible progress.

ESAS was never argued and discussed. Many of the reports which supported its establishment were never publicly released.

ESAS did not meet the intent of the original Vision. Even in its earliest form and almost as soon as the ESAS plan was established the requirements and hardware started going through major changes which meant that the ESAS plan had not been well developed to begin with, so this meant we had moved out before we even knew what we were trying to do.

We kept asking for the rationale and plan for what was being developed, and instead we got words about "Apollo on steroids" and building new rockets, originally to be based on Shuttle, but now we were told they would be 'based upon technology from Shuttle'.

When I looked into how some of the basic Constellation and Orion configuration attributes had been established I found that almost none of the trade studies or inputs from a large number of the technical development specialists were sought, and when I offered assistance, I was told they desperately needed the past experience, but they were not taking input from outside. When I started looking into who the people were who were in charge, I found that most had none of the experience I would have expected for their particular positions.

We knew that as the basic requirements and configuration attributes were changing, that there were serious problems with the design,capabilities and interfaces between the booster and capsule. Although none of us knew
the extent until Augustine 'looked under the hood' and determined the program would be tens of billions over budget and perhaps a decade behind schedule before even the first elements could be brought on-line. The other bigger and later elements that were the key to carrying out the intended mission would be decadeS after than.

Constellation was funded entirely with my money and yours. We had every right to have a voice in how the program was proceeding. For those of us who work in the program, Constellation's progress, regardless of whether we were working directly on that program or not, was our future. It was to be our jobs after Shuttle; we needed it for supporting ISS. Many of us did not even realize that the message from the Administrator and the Constellation Program all along had been to kill Shuttle and to kill ISS, just as soon as possible, in order to get 'their program' our money.

Constellation's failure represented the inability for us to do our jobs. For many in aerospace, it meant whether they had a job.

And Constellation was not only given every opportunity, they were asked; some of us demanded that they keep us in the loop, up to date, that they describe and define what they were doing and why.

At the height of the program late last summer, they flew Ares 1X. I don't think anyone realized how expensive an effort this had been until rather late in the process. Many of us had asked for specific details as to what that flight was for; what exactly was it showing? Could a long skinny solid fuel rocket be launched? There have been similar configuration rockets in the past, like the Scout. Would a Shuttle SRB work? We've launched 260 of them. I have never seen a clear definition of what was being tested and why. If they were spending $2 billion of our money, we had every right to know.

Publicly, forthrightly, and honestly communicating was one of their failures.

And you are right-one of the most interesting things to see was that people would raise these issues on the blogs and few people could give a real or complete response.

By comparison, how can anyone complain about what private companies and industry are doing ? Space-X, OSC, Bigelow...they are working largely with private money. The numbers of their people are small. If they succeed, they have bought the US a new industry. If they fail, at least they did it on their own ticket. I wish them godspeed, because we are now very dependent on them.

1. Space X has never launched a single human into space. So please stop saying what Space X can do until its actually done it.

2. NASA doesn't need an unnecessary middle man to transport government workers to a government space station.

3. That government space station (ISS) should probably be decommissioned after 2015 so that NASA can move on to beyond LEO missions. Keeping this government program alive at $2 to $3 billion a year just to enhance Elon Musk's profits is a huge waste of tax payer dollars.

Marcel F. Williams

"He certainly has more courage than you do."

If courage is the metric....

Armstrong and Cernan have made their views clear on the disaster the Obama plan is.

And Obama's tight control of who was allowed to be graced by his presence during the screw NASA two hour tour speaks volumes.

@moonman:
"I was never a Constellation hater, but I had serious misgivings with the program, first with the ESAS, later with the management, and finally after considerable expenditure and time, with the lack of any substantial, visible progress."

Thanks for a very reasoned and articulate explanation. Actually, I share some of the same misgivings that you cite. I cannot defend some of them because I would have done things differently had I been in charge. For example, I've seen loads and loads of rocket designs over the years and I wouldn't have chosen the Ares I / V complement; I think there are other designs that would be more efficient (e.g. equally or more capable with less cost) for the job.

However, the points you make are far different from some of the diatribe I've seen here that suggests NASA (and it's current contractors) is completely dysfunctional and "commercial" space can do everything for an order of magnitude less cost. That is crazy talk, and should be labeled so.

As I've said before, and like many, many others, I would sure like to know more about the what plans the Obama space proposal includes. (And it might just take poor Charlie off of the hot seat!)

I offer one thought as a possible contributing factor to their reticence. Something that I've seen again and again from politicians, news people and bloggers (including the fine people who contribute to NASAWatch) is what I think of as the "bum declaration."

People make unqualified assertions, absolutely convinced that their statements settle the matter under discussion forever, but they don't, in fact, know what they're talking about. And worse, when you attempt to explain the fallacies in their assertions, they simply don't believe you, and nothing you can say, no matter how tactfully, can make them consider that they might be wrong.

I worked for years in aerospace, but I assume that I must qualify every statement I make (even if only to admit that it's just an opinion) because I certainly don't know everything, and in many areas the facts can change literally day to day.

As one recent example the bum declaration, consider the stories about radiation and the PETA monkeys (as opposed to pet a monkey?). Several bloggers have suggested using the human medical x-ray and radiation treatment data to answer the question of radiation risk in space BEO. I'm sorry, but the two situations are completely unrelated; data from either is of very little use to the other. At least one other poster said (paraphrasing) we already know all we need to know about radiation's effects on humans because of all the time spent on the ISS. Again, completely unrelated; one of the very first really important things that NASA learned was about the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Radiation conditions below the belt, inside the belt and outside the belt (interplanetary space) are three very different environments, none of which can be used to predict the others. The ISS is in LEO, well below the Van Allen Belts, and tells us nothing about what would be experienced on a trip to the Moon, Mars or an asteroid.

People who make these suggestions, I feel sure, do so in good faith; but they still don't have their facts straight. Those people who take the time to make these sorts of constructive contributions are, in my mind, and asset to the space cause. However, those few know-it-alls who can't be convinced that
they're full of it, and won't even consider that hey might be wrong, probably lose us more than the reasonable people contribute. So, if the White House and NASA HQ are slow to release facts, PART of it MIGHT be simply a reluctance to give ammunition to the enemy.

Steve

President Obama at NASA a couple of months ago " why go to the moon we have been there done that"

How dare he invoke Apollo in his little speech from the oval office the other night.. HOW DARE HE!..... You lost your right to do that Mr.President when you made your little comment at NASA. A mission to nowhere and everywhere. NO clear GOAL NO clear DESTINATION NO clear MANDATE only an Agenda to the cut the budgets and jobs. I find myself on the defending Obama side of an argument more then not. With this I can not stand by him or his policy concerning Space exploration or HSF. Your not inspiring young minds Mr.President your laying off their parents to save a buck. I congratulate Space X on their successful launch and wish them all the luck in the world with a launch manifest that is so heavy the next year or so.I would like to state that I'm not a Constellationphile, They screwed themselves with poor management and an apparent lack of progress in the allotted time given them. But to throw out the MOON is not good science, its the logical next step for MAN and his exploration of space. Young people look up at the moon every night , those same people you are trying to inspire. I don't think its very inspirational to tell them the largest object in the night sky isn't worth our time because we have been before. I sure am glad those explorers to the new world in the 1400's didn't think that way.WE SHOULD HAVE MULTIPLE ROVERS AND CAMERAS BROADCASTING LIVE FROM THE MOON TODAY! This is NASA's Fault and every administration and congress since they canceled APOLLO 18,19.A fundamental Lack of Vision for the future.

Damn the Gravity!

"That government space station (ISS) should probably be decommissioned after 2015 so that NASA can move on to beyond LEO missions. Keeping this government program alive at $2 to $3 billion a year just to enhance Elon Musk's profits is a huge waste of tax payer dollars."

If human spaceflight is productive in LEO we need to enhance ISS, not abandon it. If human spaceflight is not productive in LEO it is unlikely we would be productive beyond LEO where costs are orders of magnitude higher. If NASA is to move on to missions beyond LEO, we need to understand how these missions will provide practical benefits.

By comparison, there is a researcher at Kennedy Space Center who may have found the cause of Alzheimer's disease, the sixth leading cause of death in America, but his minimal funding has been cut off. http://www.spaceflorida.gov/index.php/en/life-sciences/bio-medical
If a NASA facility has a unique capability for research that could save many lives, shouldn't the agency be permitted to spend a tiny amount to investigate it, even if it isn't required for a Moon base? Or can NASA only provide medical advances if they are an accidental byproduct of human spaceflight?

Keep in mind you Spacex bashers that until May 5, 1961 no government agency had ever launched a human into space either. And no commercial entity will do so until the government is satisfied that the vehicle is as safe as can be made. Without the funds to keep the Shuttle flying, and without Orion/Ares 1 ready to take up the slack immediately, both the Bush Administration AND Congress was ready for a gap. So let's stop the arguing about what coulda shoulda happened and give the Mercent 7 our support to get an American flag carrier in the game.

The future emergence of private commercial manned spaceflight companies in the US should be an event celebrated by all Americans!

Unfortunately, the President spoiled it by not only taking away the Moon but by also taking away NASA's ability to fly into space. And his attempt to cripple the manned space program owned by the American people has ignited a totally unnecessary civil war.

NASA's manned agenda in space is totally different from the manned agenda of private industry in the New Frontier. And both are going to be required if the American people are going to continue to prosper from our advancements in space.

Marcel F. Williams