More Space Policy Goodness From the White House

This is crazy; NASA does not need to be in the satellite business. Commercial space has that well covered.

This is pushing someone's personal agenda. This is not in the national interest.

Yeah well "international" is not an answer to "what are we going to do next". It is not even an answer to "how will we move forward". It's just a way to maybe get more budget, but also add inter-agency barriers, as if the intra-agency barriers were not enough. I am not sure it will break even.

"COTS" was part of the answer to "how". We'll get LEO access for cheap, and so will have more money for next. That made perfect sense.

"Flexible path" was part of the answer to "what". We'll avoid ISS-esque programs, and concentrate on missions like asteroid visits - do it, finish it, move on to the next goal - no lingering. Asteroids, Mars orbit, Mars. And meanwhile, much more Mars robotic exploration and prep-work. That's good too.

I would really want to see a more detailed answer to "what". There were fairly detailed proposals, but I haven't seen official adoption of any of them.

To be fair, for the last 4 months or so most of what the administration had to do was fight the nonsensical "you're killing NASA" crowd, and I'm sure that was distracting.

It's pretty clear that the people involved are trying to put together a much further looking and concrete agenda than VSE, so personally, I'm willing to wait longer for this information.

Aerin -- This document is NOT about NASA; it's supposed to summarize space policy for the entire US government. The government as a whole encourages space communication systems, for example. The government uses space systems for intelligence gathering, and for enabling vital military operations. The US government wishes to cooperate in space programs with other nations, etc.

This is a statement about US national interests and how we expect to carry them out in space. It is not a new development and it is nothing to feel concerned about.

Good points Crazy Eddie.

There are a number of reasons the admin has been on the defensive since April 15. Part of it is from people who have reasons to resist change, and part of it is the admin has been unprepared and a bit secretive. The selective use of ADA to bring CxP to a near stand-still and the speed at which it was pushed didn't help either.

I think both plans have merit, however, I also believe that we need to just get on with something simple at the core of this.
I think a SIMPLE YET ROBUST design for the Orion capsule that initially will be the "lite" version with a crew of 4 just to get to LEO using an EELV. Then, you would of course leave room to increase the crew size to 6 when a new heavy lift rocket is ready for further exploration.
We as a space-faring nation, need to get up off of our collective thumbs and start simple and move it incrementally. Above all we must find our independence from the Russians and Soyuz! "Thanks for the ride but we can do this our self now."
Comments?

Aerin -- This document is NOT about NASA; it's supposed to summarize space policy for the entire US government. The government as a whole encourages space communication systems, for example. The government uses space systems for intelligence gathering, and for enabling vital military operations. The US government wishes to cooperate in space programs with other nations, etc.

This is a statement about US national interests and how we expect to carry them out in space. It is not a new development and it is nothing to feel concerned about.

they need to get this sorted the space policy is a mess there is no direction , the US is in danger of being left behind I dont have a problem with commercial space but you need a mix of both government and commercial

Robert

fyi-we have been trying to get it together for the last 20 years to build a vehicle to go the station besides the shuttle. We called it the CERV (crew emergency rescue vehicle). So someone with a new brainwave decided to call it ACRV (Assured Crew Return Vehicle), but then folks were worried about the term 'Assured' so we decided to drop the 'A' and call it the CRV. That was in 1989. Then we scrapped the program because it was too expensive and it was cheaper to pay the Russians for the Soyuz flights. So now after all the expenses and cancelling of the X-38 we moved forward with the Orion under the previous admin. THen we decided this is not working so we will go with the Orion Lite under the new admin. What is wrong with this picture ? We dont have to blame the IPs for our lack of vision or commitment. If we did not have the Russian Soyuz and Progress support to rotate the crew on the station and bring cargo and reboost the station, we would have had to abandon the ISS and leave it unmanned and may have had to deorbit it (unless it fell out of the sky like Skylab) after the Columbia tragedy. Lets give the Russians some merit for keeping the ISS going while we sort out the next vehicle over the next few years. If we cannot get Orion launched soon it may be 25 years before we can reach our goal (?). What is wrong with this picture ? Lets give the Russian partners kudos for a job well done with the ISS. Lets learn from their simplicity, operational concept, architecture, flexibility, ingenuity (several space travellers already). We are just playing catchup with our Russian partners. They are far ahead of us in their vision. Let us move forward with the HLV and get it right. Abandoning the Saturn when we were ahead was a big mistake. It set us back several decades in aerospace and astronautics. Is it not incredible that while we abandoned the Apollo program that the Russians continued with the Soyuz and it keeps them ahead. Is there something that we dont understand ? The facts speak for themselves. Whoever thinks we can be independent of the Russian support is not familiar with their crucial role in the ISS and their space station legacy and knowledge base. Lets not point fingers to the Russians and look at our own space vision for the last few decades. Where is the vision, the architecture,the operational concept flexibility....they are all missing ! The vision is myopic at best. NASA needs to move forward with a better vision which is robust and credible in order to get the support from Congress. The responsibility lies on the NASA administrator and the Mission Directorates to provide that vision and give us a robust space program. Lets not build the Orion to be 'independent'of the Russian Soyuz support. Lets build it because we need a robust vehicle to continue our mission in the ISS. The NASA administrator needs to step up the gain and the previous administrator needs to do a case study on what went wrong on his watch. Cx would make a good case study on the internal and external influences and politics of space business that impact NASA's progress. Let the new visionaries of space business learn from the ongoing Cx catastrophie that has impacted a highly skilled contractor base and cost several innocent people their jobs in the turmoil.

AC

When NASA HSF partners with Internationals, the cost will go up and the schedule will move to the right.

Whatever NASA convinces it self it may save by bringing in outside money, will be lost to additional layers of State Dept interaction, ITAR, foreign government political impacts, schedule slips, etc.

I admit we need the Russians right now, but I believe that we are one international crisis away from being stranded here while the Russians enjoy that very functional and EXPENSIVE space station. I think that not realizing that fact, is myopic at best. We are very different countries. I still think beyond the all the arguments pro and con, the U.S. needs our own basic access to LEO. There can be no denying that.

I dont understand what it is with making an argument where we keep pointing to the Russian involvement in the ISS rather than our own questionable space policy. Do we have one ??? The Russians have their own section of the station which by the way is 'very robust'. Every module is its own space vehicle. Lets see they provide us with capabilities for crew rotation, reboost of the station so it does not deorbit, cargo, crucial command and control and have the capability to help us safely deorbit (none of the US or IP modules have propulsion capability). Yes they have a very 'FUNCTIONAL' station on their side and a robust operations concept. Why blame them for our lack over the last 21 years to come up with a vehicle to the station to replace the shuttle at least for crew rotation ? Where is the vision ? We have a zero failure tolerant architecture which came to a halt when the Columbia tragedy occured. It shows lack of good management at the top. We are different countries but let us learn from our own experiences. What we are going through right now with the Cx crisis reflects on poor vision and planning within the agency compounded with the Congress and administation's role. It is no wonder that we need the private sector to take the initiative due to lack of vision within the agency and the constant redirection from the lawmakers. The only way that the private sector can succeed is by strategizing to be independent of the federal funds so they can think independently and hopefully with better vision. In the meantime the lawmakers need to get grips with the fact that neither Space X or Bigelow Aerospace has man-rated launch vehicles. And redefining the Orion Crew Return Vehicle to only serve as a crew resuce vehicle does not replace a Soyuz. Also having a vehicle that only has a 4 crew member capabiility when we have 6 crew on-orbit does not enable it to serve as even a crew rescue vehicle unless the commander and a 'toss up' crew member stay back on the station in an emergency condition. THe lack of fundamental and empirical thinking in mission requirements at the top is why we are at this juncture in the agency ! Whoever is recommending to the administration that this is a better approach is wasting tax dollars and reversing crucial progress on the Orion. Let the Cx management work out the kinks so we can have a vehicle that we can all be proud of. The Orion needs to provide crew rotation to LEO for a 6 crew member if we are NOT going to depend on the Russian support. IF we depend on their support then a 4 crew member is viable with the Soyuz taking down 2 crew members. Let us face it- the Russians are not going to abandon their modules on the ISS and we are lucky they are willing to bring down our crew in the Soyuz. They have provided us with a "viable operations concept" to keep crew safely on the station and provide us with a vehicle to leave the station in an emergency while we have a program that cannot get off the ground for 21 years. Most of all they have helped us with an "operable ISS" or we would have not made it past the Columbia tragedy. Again the buck stops with the NASA Administrator. If the vision forward fails to show a clear path then I think we need a new administrator. I have not seen any robust plan or framework presented by the new administrator to show how the agency plans to build on its internal expertise within the Mission Directorates to roadmap the robotic and human space exploration and give U.S. an edge going forward. Cx with its problems at least was on the right path. Building the Orion to service LEO and then enhancing it to go to the moon could have been a credible and viable approach. Now we just lose an incredible aerospace workforce that is impacted by poor decision makers and micro-management ending in losing our capability to even use the ISS for our own mission objectives.

AC

"The Obama administration as early as Monday is expected to call for significantly greater international cooperation than ever before in outer space, covering a wide range of civilian and national-security programs."

Doesn't "international cooperation" mean "another level of bureaucracy" as well as foreign oversight of American endeavors?

And, uh, what do they exactly mean with "greater international cooperation than ever before in ... national-security programs."?