Oil Trumps Space (Update)

As a retired politician (and space cadet from before sputnik),
I think you have this partly right. My thought is that the
Orion life boat was a sop to the Colorado delegation, and
was not thought out at all. Now that it has to be worked
into the budget, it simply requires to much time and effort
from the White House. They are just spread to thin. It isn't
a policy matter, it is a political organizational task. What
do you offer the Colorado delegation in return for the
Orion? How do you climb down from the life boat
position without making it look like you don't know what
your doing? And if you open this up, what can you offer the
space coast Senators to make them go away? It's just to
much to handle at this time. CR is not an impossible
situation for the White House. Cx is effectively dead. The
Space Shuttle is dead. Congress will have a different real
world to deal with in FY2012 budget year (new congress
for that matter). Rohm probably said "@!x@ it" so loudly
you could hear it on capital hill.

Well all last fall we surmised that the Administration was busy with the economic crisis, that's why they weren't making progress on future NASA policy. Well now we have an oil crisis and it's the same old thing - "...sorry, can't focus on it right now." Maybe it's too easy to be so critical of the Obama Administration right now, but I can't help myself -- they are just flat out doing a bad job wrt NASA, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better.

"Maybe it's too easy to be so critical of the Obama Administration right now, but I can't help myself -- they are just flat out doing a bad job wrt NASA"

Hate to tell you all, but 'the Administration' includes NASA, its Administrator and all of its personnel.

NASA should be bringing forward ideas and plans. Maybe Obama or Holdren will shoot it down, but Obama's main job is to get his space people to bring him a workable plan.

For the last 5 years, Constellation fell flat on its face when their plan, which they worked to great detail with tens of thousands of people and with billions of dollars, turned out to be unworkable; interesting that they needed about two dozen 'experts', about 3 months to figure that out.

NASA should have been strategically planning the future for several years and should have a list of plans for different budget strategies.

WHen they say the Administration doesn't have time, they mean NASA is not doing its job.

To be fair I think you should recognize that NASA is
far down on most peoples list of concerns now. Yes
the economic recovery, the deficit, the two wars, and
the disaster in the gulf are more important to the
White House just now. There also more important to me and
I would hope to most space cadets. NASA isn't going to
fair any better than the nation as a whole does. A CR
is probable for the entire budget anyway. We can all live
with a CR on NASA's budget. What you havn't enjoyed the
food fight?

As a poll myself, I would give Obama a “B” so far. He has
gotten a lot out of a difficult congress to work with. The
Congress isn’t Democrat and Republican or Liberal and
Conservative. These are just the labels they use to
bamboozle the electorate. They are the gravy train gang,
honest or dirty they all want to keep the gravy train going.
They all want to get reelected and nothing else comes a
close second.

"NASA is far down on most peoples list of concerns now"

Totally disagree. The tens of thousands of lay-offs right now just makes the financial situation worse for a bunch of people. The US and the Fed are both big groups with lots of different balls in the air and they all need to be managed. There is no shortage of people to do the job.

"I would give Obama a “B” so far. He has gotten a lot out of a difficult congress"

Totally disagree. He has a completely Democratic Congress. It will never get any easier. Obvama keeps trying to come up with answers for everyone. That is not his job. He needs to act like an Executive and make the big decisions, but he needs to be selecting the right people to come and tell him what he needs to know to make the decisions.

Obama is a failure as a President. He gets high marks as a caring, nice guy, and if he were a neophyte politician in East Podunk, he might be doing a great job.

But as a President, total failure!

"The tens of thousands of lay-offs right now just makes the financial situation worse for a bunch of people."

True, however there are 15 *million* people out of work. This is disastrous for the space coast but unfortunately only blip on the unemployment radar screen.

"Totally disagree. He has a completely Democratic Congress."
Not quite. He doesn't even have a filibuster-proof majority. Almost every piece of legislation or nomination he proposes seems to go through some tortuous path to even come up for vote. Even if his plan were the best decision for NASA, he faces quite a fight just on partisan grounds. For example, per the new plan, Shelby's district actually stands to gain jobs however he's die-hard Constellation and firmly opposed to redirection. But I do agree with you - it's not likely to get any easier.
Pres. Obama made the "big decision" to cancel Constellation and propose a new plan. However there's obviously disagreement about his decision and with that, disagreement as to who would constitute the "right people" to inform his decisions. The space community is split on this issue. Nonetheless, where the Obama administration obviously messed up was the botched roll-out of his proposed plan. It could've used more details and specifics. However, since NASA "legally" can't work on anything that could be construed as abetting Constellation's cancellation (there are calls for investigations already), I don't know how much more work would have been allowed.

@moonman:
"Hate to tell you all, but 'the Administration' includes NASA, its Administrator and all of its personnel. ... NASA should be bringing forward ideas and plans. Maybe Obama or Holdren will shoot it down, but Obama's main job is to get his space people to bring him a workable plan. ... NASA should have been strategically planning the future for several years and should have a list of plans for different budget strategies."

You, sir, are full of s***. Making such absurd statements demonstrates your utter lack of knowledge and perspective on the situation. I have participated in advanced planning at multiple levels and multiple locations within the agency for years. So many ideas, plans, designs, etc. exist - at both strategic and tactical levels, and across a wide spectrum of budget profiles - that one could achieve significant altitude just by standing on the printouts (if they were actually printed out). A few years ago, the number of "shuttle replacement" rocket designs was in the high *hundreds* - and new designs are constantly being analyzed. "Openness" and creativity are quite high, and the plans are very "workable."

As many rational people on this blog have pointed out, the problem is not the lack of ideas, competencies, or commitment by NASA or it's contractors, the problem is in the political arena. And this includes politicians of all stripes and colors. Where there is a will, there is a way. Without the will - and a steady, consistent will, we will get nowhere. This phenomenon is not unique to NASA or the government. Look around, you can see it all around you, in large and small ways, every day.

"Not quite. He doesn't even have a filibuster-proof majority."

Actually, President Obama did have a fillibuster-proof senate through about 8 months of his first year. Between the time Al Franken was confirmed and Scott Brown was elected. Of course, that is assuming the the two independents voted with the Democrats, which is usually (but not always) the case. While it is no longer the case, however, it is still the "friendliest" congress that the President has had for a very long time. However, the opposition to his plan is not only Republican (though granted the majority of it is). I cannot say I know the answer to this, but has Senator Mikulski signed off on it yet?

And as for Keith's statement of "(they don't multi-task it would seem)" all I can think of is Windows 3.1 for Workgroups. Sorry, bad (and very geeky) joke.....

The failure to lead and handle NASA properly, is simply another manifestation of the administration's poor leadership abilities.

These were comments about the oil spill speech from a rather supportive crowd for the admin.
It struck me how familiar it sounded as we have watched the NASA mess unfold.......

Olbermann: "Nothing specific at all was said."

Matthews: "No direction."

Howard Fineman: "He wasn't specific enough."

Olbermann: "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all. It's startling."

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a "commander-in-chief."

Matthews: "I don't sense executive command."

Planetary Society, a huge supportor of ObamaSpace complaining that it's a communication problem is at least starting to recognize the real issue...

We have a very dire leadership vacuum at the top.

I think your answer points out the issue. Very much in the same vein as Eric Sterner's recent editorial

http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/100616-blog-Destinations-in-Rhetoric.html

NASA puts forward a lot of verbiage with a lot of conflicting ideas, but there is no strategic visionary leading the way, defining the path and arguing the logic behind it.

BrianM defined a very logical path forward:

"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."

"As many rational people on this blog have pointed out, the problem is not the lack of ideas, competencies, or commitment by NASA or it's contractors, the problem is in the political arena."

I hate to tell you, since you apparently do not recognize it, NASA, as an element of the administration, is in the political arena.

NASA needs to figure out what it is in favor of. You and others seem to think Mr. Obama, or the Congress or someone else is going to lead the way. NASA is the Nation's pre-eminent civil space organization and at some point it is expected that NASA will lead. NASA may ultimately require the President's and Congress' endorsement and support, but as you point out, NASA has the technical expertise. Now NASA needs some genuine leadership. At least in human space, we've not seen any signs of that in many years.

There is no question about it: we do not have a von Braun, James Webb, et al leading the way and pushing forward anymore. But the working troops *are* putting plenty of credible and logical ideas and plans on the table.

"BrianM" did indeed lay out a very logical path forward. I have seen much of this path before...lol...in fact, I considered outlining a similar sequence in one of these threads a few weeks ago, but didn't because I was concerned that it (and I) would be recognized. Let me just say that I concur with BrianM's outline. :-)

However, the problem that the NASA-bashers seem to be missing (or refusing to acknowledge?) is that Mr. Holdren and Ms. Garver (and Mr. Bolden?) DO NOT WANT to hear/discuss/review/accept any of these plans. Why, I do not know... Their refusal, however, does not mean that the C.S. or contractor working troops are idiots and can't plan their way out of a paper bag.

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."

This flexibility is what killed both SEI and the ESAS version of the VSE. A Mars capable heavy lift is a far different thing than a lunar or even asteroid targeted heavy lift.

Derive the Sortie vehicle elements and systems from already designed ISS elements and systems. Scar them as appropriate to be able to accommodate advanced elements like a Bigelow inflatable module, or a VASIMR power system, etc, but start now with what we have and modify as required to meet an initial capability.

Likewise for the booster. Sure we would love to have a Nova class booster, or maybe even an Ares 5. Thats a 200 billion, 20-30 year proposition. Its not going to happen. Yet we have Shuttle infrastructure and elements today. Let that serve as the point of departure. Make use of the hardware, people, and capabilities available today and scar for future extension. If cost is the primary constraint, then a side-mount SDV is the near term approach. If we do that in conjunction with orbital refueling capabilities, its likely adequate.

Maybe in time we can build a larger service structure, develop a new engine, and go with a tandem staged booster. But if we cannot afford that today, then don't plan for it.

ESAS and SEI both started out with the $400 billion multi-decadal grand plan and ultimately built nothing at all. Lets try going at it from the opposite direction and use what we do have as the start.

I agree with you SpaceTruckin'. I too have seen various detailed NASA plans over the last decade plus that lay out in detail the technologies and architectures to go multiple places. These have not all been in the public domain, but they exist and the engineers/scientists at NASA already have them. The problem is the policy makers have bad or no direction from the Whitehouse. Now you can blame Holdren or Obama but the blame resides at 2600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Canceling the Shuttle was a foolish mistake by Griffin and Bush.Just how smart do you have to be to keep your old car that's still running until you have a new one that actually works? Particularly when we are about to fire all the people who actually have hardware experience while keeping all the civil servants who have never picked up a wrench. Shuttle works now, and we don't have anything else for human spaceflight or even ISS logistics that does. Obviously Obama would have left well enough alone if Bush had.

Neither Bush nor Obama would have funded a trip to the moon when it costs over $100B and produces nothing useful. But it was equally bad judgment for Obama not to simply jettison Constellation and extend Shuttle. Augustine returned only a laundry list and Obama tried to pick the most innocuous choice. Augustine apparently forgot that Apollo was canceled because ELVs are simply too expensive for practical human spaceflight.

But NASA gave mixed messages, many parts of the agency are still fighting to kill Shuttle and continue Constellation. Now they have neither one. Some are still fighting to demolish the Shuttle launch pad next month, assuming that will somehow reboot Constellation. If NASA can't even come to a consensus on what it wants to do, it is hypocritical to blame Obama's lack of leadership. I challenge anyone to look at the gargantuan structures that Ares requires just to launch, and compare them to what SpaceX uses to do the same job, and maintain that NASA still knows how to build rockets.

moonman and SpaceTruckin, you both don't seem to realize that NASA HSF no longer has the capability to do design and development. Oh, the Shuttle/ISS ops managers and engineers think they can, but they can't. Too stupid to realize it and too arrogant to admit it even if they knew. Ops people are running CxP and Engineering at the Centers. The Code M centers decimated their design capability after Shuttle was declared operational. KSC completely eliminated its design capability and is no longer capable of competent design work, JSC has some capability, MSFC is probably most able. Thirty years of operations and contracting out all design engineering has left NASA HSF in a hopeless situation. Only unlimited time and money will allow us to succeed. Bush/Obama, Griffin/Bolden, CxP/Flexible Path, none of this matters. NASA is incapable of developing large and complex systems, they simply do not have the right talent in the right place. There are few left who can manage and perform this type of work, and they ARE NOT in charge. Our only hope is commercial or extend the Shuttle another 30 years because all we know how to do is operate (and we don't even do that well).

Another problem NASA has is that many of its employees are extremely partisan and would rather see NASA fail so that they can blame Obama than work to build a successful consensus. At least half of space enthusiasts are Democrats. Together we might stand. Divided we will certainly fall.

dogstar2 you have no idea what you are talking about. The rank/file NASA people are not partisan at all. They try to execute the mission as best they can regardless of what party is in control of Congress or the White House. The problem here is that they have not been given a mission. All they have to go on is lame words like "develop game changing technologies". What kind of BS direction is that? You can not develop a plan from the bottom up unless the policy makers make some key decisions. Things like where do you want to go, when do you want to get there, and how much are you willing to pay? Once those are answered, the rank and file NASA/contractor work force can develop a plan.

Possum, you are RIGHT ON THE MONEY. The capability no longer exists within NASA -- those "best and brightest" you keep hearing about may be correct as it relates to flying a 30 year old design. It sure isn't true about creating a new one. And your MSFC comment- I beg to differ. The biggest NASA contractor here at MSFC isn't Lockheed, or Boeing, or ATK -- it's Jacobs Engineering!! Because they don't have the capability within NASA. And the poor Jacobs guys have to do all the work, then have the NASA paper pushers changing their mind, revising documents to change "their" to "there", etc. Maybe this week it should be blue instead of green. Just wait for next week....

The answer isn't to kill Constellation -- it's to back NASA the hell away from it, let the Boeings/Lockheeds/ATKs do what they know how to do. Give them a requirement (that you don't change every hour) and let them go. Why do you think contractors want cost plus contracts? Because NASA can't make up their damn mind what they want, and jerk them around. It's a no brainer why it costs so much. As soon as NASA gets their fingers around Elon, his price will skyrocket too. My guess, though, is that with his half billion contract he'll probably decide NASA's money isn't worth the pain and agony.

The capability no longer exists within NASA -

You know, I don't buy this. I have worked with some incredible people at MSFC, GRC, LaRC, JSC, Ames, GSFC, and JPL, who know their craft and are quite brilliant. It is the management for the most part that is deficient in understanding what it takes to actually get a design out the door.

The players are alright, it was the coach that screwed up the plan. Well the old coach is gone and the 535 AD's and players are arguing about the new Coach's plan. Not a recipe for success.

2600 Penn. Ave. is a hotel. For the White House, you must mean 1600...

moonman said "Hate to tell you all, but 'the Administration' includes NASA, its Administrator and all of its personnel.

NASA should be bringing forward ideas and plans. Maybe Obama or Holdren will shoot it down, but Obama's main job is to get his space people to bring him a workable plan."

NASA was blindsided by an FY11 plan that Obama's advisers came up with, behind closed doors, without any coordination with NASA technical leadership. NASA has been trying to bring forward ideas and plans ever since, including a whole set of RFI's and point-of-departure missions that hit the street in May.

So I think your comment is very misguided.

Frank,

Thanks for correcting me. That is my fat fingers hitting the keyboard. Although maybe we would get better direction from the hotel at 2600 Penn. Ave. :)

Also the home of the La Perla italian restaurant and a condo building. So there's good food and 2 br/2ba apartments for under a million. Sounds like great safe-house spot for quiet productive meetings to sort out the future of NASA. The head and the heart need to work out the common vision and approach, what we do every day when we write winning proposals. Quo vadis?

@ go4launch and possum:
"The [design and development] capability no longer exists within NASA."

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. I personally know and have worked with plenty of brilliant, fully capable design and development folks at multiple NASA centers. MSFC probably has the lion's share of them nowadays, but they're all over (LaRC, GRC, JSC, etc.) and there are plenty around the agency to get the job done.

Now, are there also C.S. paper pushers who get in over their heads or think they know everything? Sure, they exist too. But if you want to argue about C.S. -vs- contractor competencies, I could cite the number of contractors I've encountered who are *solely* focused on making bucks off the government, regardless of project progress. Instead, my previous comments on this forum have emphasized the dedication and expertise that the contractors bring to the table. United we stand, divided we fall.

Bottom line: there's plenty of good, dedicated folks to get the job done, and your generalized negative comments are false. Moreover, your comments don't help advance the discussion here.

No, I don't think the statement is misguided at all.

I think the White House and NASA management are dysfunctional. Show your feelings in the voting booth, and write to the White House and to Congress.

NASA is not supposed to be on opposite sides with the White House. NASA is part of the Executive Branch and the Administrator and employees all work for the Executive Branch.

"@ go4launch and possum:
"The [design and development] capability no longer exists within NASA."
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense.
Dennis Wingo
The capability no longer exists within NASA
You know, I don't buy this."

I would have to say that some of the capability, both old hands with experience and new guys with potential, are available and could get the job done. That being said, I would want them to start out with something fairly simple and straight forward, based on existing hardware and systems, that could be developed and fielded in a relatively short, few-year time frame. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

NASA certainly has a talent pool available to it the equivalent of a Space-X and some of the [smaller] contractors.

I do agree with Dennis, and Constellation is a prime example, that the management is seriously lacking and leadership is nonexistent. They try to make things too large, too convoluted, too bureaucratic, too difficult, all unnecessarily so. The existing management is uncomfortable unless they surround themselves with a large bunch of 'hey-boys' all of whom are going to buy into some erroneous consensus. It did not work in Constellation and it will not work in the future.

I have also seen, and both Constellation and ISS are good examples, that the management has corrupted itself over the last decade+, really since the big station management changeover in about 1993. I for one would like to see an investigation of how people without the requisite experience or education get placed and promoted into positions leading functions they know nothing about.

This is the reason that the job did not get done on Constellation and the reason the costs are exorbitantly high.

I keep thinking back to Frank Borman and the Congressional review of the Apollo 1 fire, during which he said 'we have confidence in our management'.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4205/ch9-3.html

I have to say, that after 35 years in the program and having worked with some really great managers and leaders, I can no longer say this. I have no confidence.

The Human Space Flight management requires a serious house cleaning and the organization requires a serious restructuring. The problem is that absolutely none of the current management has experience in the functional organization of the earlier generations.

This is the reason that the job did not get done on Constellation and the reason the costs are exorbitantly high.

There is an axiom that Von Braun had about rockets. "A bigger rocket is no problem, it just costs more money".

From my experience as you get bigger the infrastructure costs scale exponentially rather than linearly. Also, back in the 1960's when the VAB and the big facilities at NASA were built, they were built for a much higher production and flight rate than was ever funded by congress. It has always amazed me that the VAB was designed for integrating four Saturn V's at a time!

That aside, Mike Griffin, who should have known better, lowballed the cost for developing the ESAS system. I know that in my posts I seem to be a MIke basher but I can't help it when I am told by people that actually worked on the Saturn V and Shuttle development programs tell me that MIke woefully underestimated the costs involved. The problem with that generation in Huntsville is that they thought that with this new incarnation that at least something was happening and they almost to a man offered their help and experience to make it work.

They were ignored by Mike and that perhaps is as big of a mistake as any that he as a manager made. The reason was that he simply did not want to hear what they had to say, and when that happens, nothing good is going to come of your program, especially when the experience base for managing such programs was so depleted in the younger generation.

The saddest part for me is that many of the Apollo generation that worked on and developed the greatest vehicle in the history of aerospace are so disheartened now and few expect to see us return to the Moon in their lifetime. When you think of the disappointment in the young who see what they thought was a great program dying in constellation, think more of the sadness of those with decades of experience who were ignored, and who understood that the new plan had no chance of success within the constraints that were given. I know some of them who are embittered now with that sadness.

It is up to us to not let them know that we are not going to give up on this and that we have learned from them and we will make this work, one way or another.

Build on what we have - its the same old saw.

Shuttle is *gone* man - gone two years ago.

Dennis, I agree with your statement. I am one of those younger engineers, but the feeling isn't sadness, it is pissed off! I reflect on my education and everything it took to work on a HSF program, and all I can ask is why didn't I just work in the Bio-medical field, instead of trying to serve my country? I guess I got hooked on the crazy notion that this country has the potential to be the greatest country in the world.

So, that is my two cents worth... Back to work...

There are good people at every "organization" in The Republic. There are good people at BP for instance. But good people cannot individually overcome the inertia, bad practices, or bad management of a poor organization. In fact the "better" the people the quicker they try and conform to the organizational trends to make sure that "their part" goes well...in other words they compartmentalize to make their efforts successful.

The problems in NASA human spaceflight are those inherent in cloning with all the wrong DNA replication. Accidents and events instead of being squarely faced have perpetuated all the wrong habits. The structure as a whole (NASA oversight of contractors) is left over from the Apollo era where it had some merit (spaceflight was new and technology cutting edge) but has almost none now. As SpaceX has demonstrated SOUNDLY there is nothing about "rocket science" that cannot be tackled by conventional engineering/management structures that serve American industry in almost every other venue.

In addition NASA/contractors are dealing with a mission, human exploration of space, that has no political mandate now, and has not had one for 40 years.

If the Navy tried to build/operate submarines (that work in dangerous difficult environments) like NASA has built the space station and builds Constellation...we would still be trying to build Nautilus.

The trick (that I like) about Obama's (or whoever made it up) policy is that it tries to divorce NASA and the contractors from the relationship that they have now. Whatever comes next cannot be worse.

Right now we have NASA/contractor forces floundering with billions gone in building a fairly "conventional" rocket/capsule combination (it is a Saturn 1B with an Apollo on it) ...private citizens/groups are conducting leading edge technology research in things like VASIMER and inflatables things which if they work are game changers yet they dont get a lot of money...the only bright spot is that people like SpaceX, Masten and a few others are forming the "space lines" of our time.

A whole lot of talent and money is being wasted and misused...until that changes we are going "nowhere".

Robert G. Oler

The capability no longer exists within NASA

If you are talking about the capability to do design and development, I don't see how anyone can deny that statement, since NASA has always relied on contractors to design and manufacture hardware. That doesn't mean that there is no talent in NASA, but I do think it is more geared toward the scientific perspective rather than the engineering one. Is kind of like comparing a college professor to a technical expert in private industry. I don't see, however, how this is an impedement to advance in HSF.

Most of your observations are correct. All of your observations on management within NASA and contractors are 100% correct.

Since most of the NASA management has no bona fide management training, they would have no idea.

Dennis, I agree with your statement. I am one of those younger engineers, but the feeling isn't sadness, it is pissed off! I reflect on my education and everything it took to work on a HSF program, and all I can ask is why didn't I just work in the Bio-medical field, instead of trying to serve my country? I guess I got hooked on the crazy notion that this country has the potential to be the greatest country in the world.

You are where I was at in 1993 when the Space Exploration Initiative, the last push beyond LEO was killed. I was pissed then and am not any happier with the new crowd that screwed us this time. This is why I have not been silent this time around. When I was your age, I really did not understand all of the high level problems that led to the collapse of the Space Exploration Initiative, though I did have a contract cancelled by congress after NASA awarded it (the Lunar Resource Mapper spacecraf of which I was the PI for the gravity subsatellite) just because they wanted to keep George Bush senior from having any success with that program.

My determination was to learn as much as I could about the art, and get involved in the politics in order to understand what had to be done in order to help the plan be successful this time around. I was heavily involved in the early VSE work and a great deal of it was first rate, with Mankin's H&RT projects and the CE&R studies as well.

The new Obama plan is much like the implementation phase of the CE&R work without the Moon involved. I do think that this lack is the Achilles heel of the new plan but this can be fixed as we go forward. One thing that is for sure is that Constellation was NEVER going to do as advertised and while I feel for those getting laid off, without this happening there would be no way to reconstruct into a successful plan.

Politics is the art of the possible and I do think that one way or another we will make this happen!

I just don't understand the comments that Constellation was "never going to do as advertised." Is this just sour grapes for CxP, or is there some factual basis for this? Orion is going fine. First stage is going fine. Ground systems are going fine. LAS is going fine. The upper stage was in deep doo doo, since NASA chose to hold on to the DDT&E for that, and were having trouble finding their way out of the wet paper bag. But they'd eventually give up, hand it to Boeing, blame them for being late, and Boeing would bail them out and we'd have an Ares I. I just don't see how folks think it was never going to happen. What am I missing?

(and SpaceTruckin', sorry if I'm too negative. Like I've said elsewhere, this is the first time for me that a president's decisions are directly screwing up my life and my family - I'm having trouble not being pissed.)

I just don't understand the comments that Constellation was "never going to do as advertised."

As advertised was 'Safe, simple, and soon'.

Simple implied within the original cost constraints of a relatively stable and constant NASA budget. Budget projections by the end were 100s of per cent over for both development and operations.

Soon meant first flights in 2011. Lunar flights were going to start in the teens. By the time Augustine was done, Orion might have flown in the late teens and lunar missions were 1-2 decades later.

Safe was based on the idea that the original booster was a Shuttle SRB and SSME that had been flown 100s of times. The point was debatable by the time of cancellation.

Thanks to decisions made on the size of Orion, if there was no new Ares 1 booster, then there was no capability to launch it and as you say, a big part of the booster was in serious trouble. Thanks also to the decisions made on Orion's size, it could no longer meet the original requirements for crew size. When Constellation started, there was a cargo version in addition to the crew version. It was dropped very early on as a result of cost and schedule issues.

So almost nothing that Constellation started out to do was where it was when its cancellation was announced.

And of course this question avoids the question of whether the Constellation Program ever met the original intent of the Vision.