Should Congress Design the Next Big Booster?

Congress doesn't trust NASA's administrators to follow the will of Congress. The admins have proven that they will use the letter of the law to circumvent the intent of Congress. So Congress feels they need to be very specific about what they want done, to the point of being too specific. I don't blame Congress, but it's less than optimal I agree.

I think we need new NASA administrators once Congress has passed this budget. The current admins were picked in order to dismantle Constellation and move Obamaspace forward. Now that's over with, we need administrators who are skilled in executing a space exploration program, and that Congress can trust.

Frank, I don't understand your comment that "An in-line Shuttle-derived solution has also been eliminated." Do you mean Ares-V has been eliminated? Because what the quoted report describes sure looks like an in-line Shuttle-derived launcher to me. It must use existing engines and components, it must use 4-segment SRB motors, it must use an Orion-based MPCV, it must use existing tooling and facilities. What else could it be, other than "Shuttle-derived"?

A1. Yes, this is a good thing. All of the previous launch system proposals have been pie-in-the-sky wish-lists concocted by NASA without Congressional or Presidential backing. This puts the new launch system in a unique position with the force of law behind it. True, Congress did mandate "Shuttle-derived" for the implementation of the VSE, but they were very vague and let NASA have its head. And look where that got us.

A2. Been there, done that. Congress is trying something different, since what they tried before was a miserable failure.

A3. Basically Congress is trying to replicate as much of the capabilities of the Shuttle as possible, using as much of the legacy hardware as possible, so that NASA can get something flying quickly. They don't want NASA to go off searching for the Holy Grail. Just fly something already!

Mark S.

Mark, I meant a sidemount.

Is this a good precedent for Congress to follow in specifying the technical details of a new launch system?

Probably not, but with poor executive leadership coupled with half-baked ideas on future directions and activities, one can see why they are doing it.

If not, then how can Congress be persuaded to let the design work be done by NASA?

Perhaps if NASA could show that it is capable enough and responsible enough to implement the direction they are given (as they did not do with the VSE), then Congress and the Executive will not feel the need to micromanage their efforts.

Why the rush for a new heavy lift vehicle: What is it for-

Presumably to preserve a workforce and an industrial infrastructure and capability that would otherwise be irretrievably lost.

NASA is an Executive Branch organization. How is it that is must be in "compliance" with a Legislative Branch mandate? This seems to violate separation of powers.

sorry guys, Inline is still in the mix, not sure where the side mount only thinking is coming from.

Nice article Frank, although I believe you got in-line and side-mount Shuttle derived mixed up in the latter part of the article.

#1: No, it's not a good precedent, but is understandable in context of the Obama/Holgren/Garver attempt to dismantle NASA. Hopefully this will not continue in the future.
#2: Establishing trust will take a while, and probably not until Holgren and Garver are replaced, and maybe Bolden too.
#3: All forseeable mission scenarios are possible with heavy lift; Lunar, Mars, Asteroids, as well as numerous science missions (e.g. large telescopes) and potential industrial applications (e.g. space solar power collectors). "Making do" is moving backwards and severely limits/eliminates many mission options.

What appears to be missing is NASA leadership.

I do not mean a Griffin-esque dictatorship. I mean some people at the top who organize, argue, discuss and decide on the way forward, the alternative designs, the costs, the schedules, and then they hold their people to it.

If NASA is not going to provide leadership, then apparently others, like Congress, and like many of the bloggers on NASAWatch, feel they need to put forward their designs and plans.

Go back and read the history of von Braun's proposals of the 50s, one of which led directly to the first US satellite; look at the NASA and executive office arguments, debate and decisions associated with LOR in 1962. Look at the NASA-led definition of Apollo Applications which led to Skylab or of the industry and MSFC led definition and design which led to the LRV; or the NASA AA led definition of requirements for a Space Shuttle; or the JSC and Headquarters led initiatives and discussion that led Reagan to define the space station which became ISS. All of these were NASA-led (von Braun was still US Army in the 50s) by individuals within NASA; well placed proponents who decided they felt they knew what was needed, they built a coalition behind their ideas, and they successfully sold their ideas to the nation's leadership and to the individuals in Congress who had to come up with the dollars. None of the decisions were made lightly or as snap judgements. All had required months and even years of debate.

Maybe the new NASA historian needs to inform Bolden, Gerstmaier and Cooke what their jobs are? Maybe they need to assign someone to go off and define a plan; a way forward.

NASA leadership appears to be MIA. Congress appears to be trying to fill the vacuum.

This is worse than BushSpace and all the -Spaces that came before. Not only are we handcuffing the US budget to an old and VERY COSTLY way of creating and operating launch services, we are now letting congresscritters constrain the engineering process based on mindless political concerns. If you thought ObamaSpace was fouled up, check back in 10 years. We'll be lurking in LEO, buying rides from the Russians and Chinese indefinitely, and paying whatever price they choose. Meanwhile we shoot their American competition in both feet and ask them to save us. Ugh. What a disaster.

Congress did not arrive at the decision to move forward with a SDHLV in a vacuum. They utilized the testimony, analysis and data from a variety of experts in the field to come to their conclusions.

It is actually a much more open process and may be a model for the future. Hopefully the days of closed door decision making of a limited group of NASA leaders are over allowing for intelligent input and solutions that fit with reality. Like it or not SDHLV fits with our current reality.

Frank, the argument that "NASA" didn't do what it was told in the past (e.g., VSE) troubles me. It wasn't NASA, as such, it was Griffin; and now congress seems to be judging the book (NASA) by it's cover from a previous edition (Griffin).

NASA has consistently failed to carry programs through in the past, but as often as not it was because congress micro-managed them out of existence -- their inexpert interference screws up the works, then they pull the funding because the program is in trouble.

So, to my mind, congress appears to be blaming NASA for its own inappropriate activities. They have no business dictating design details -- they are not, in the least, competent to do so. Besides, it should be clear to a blind man that they're not really "designing" a damn thing; they're mandating that NASA shall (a) use existing hardware technologies (whether it makes sense to or not), and (b) buy specified components from specified vendors, without consideration for appropriateness, and without regard to NASA's procurement regulations (if a NASA employee decided on his own to do the latter, he'd be up on legal charges).

If a NASA (or other) engineer or manager went to congress and tried to tell them how to do their job, and kept interfering with thumb-fingered annoyance, we know that the congress people would laugh at him (or her), do their best to humiliate him, and then toss him out as, as best, a well-meaning wayward child (if he was lucky).

It would be nice if we had an acceptable way to go to certain congress people and make it clear that they're not so bloody smart as they think they are, and if they don't smarten up they're history. Unfortunately, the democratic process (the only legal way to do this that I know of) assumes that the majority of a congress person's constituents both understand the issues and give a damn. As far as space/NASA goes, clearly this is not the case.

All of the above, of course, is based on the assumption that congress' "reasons" for their actions are as they have stated (a large lump to try and swallow!).

So, because of influences both inside and out, NASA's prime objective these days has been reduced to simply trying to survive.

One man's opinion.

Steve

Your answer is found in the Constitution.

On the subject of trashing the plans for a new kerolox HLV engine...

Ideally, the in-line would have *some* elements of 21st engineering. The notional RS25-Expendable would be an impressive piece of modern hardware. As would a J2X-powered upperstage.

Where the money comes for those in this budget is beyond me, though.

I've posted about this in the past. This is a design my congressional districts. SRBs to get the Utah senator's vote, shuttle derived to make Texas and Alabama happy, a big tank (one will be needed of course) to keep Louisiana happy, Orion to make Colorado happy, and getting something ready to launch relatively quickly to make Florida happy. Do you think any of those responsible have a true understanding of what they are doing or just simply like pig farms in their states? I doubt they even care that much whether it fails again as long as the money gets sent to their states in the meantime. Hate to be so cynical but that's what I see. What should be done is to do some quick studies (although plenty have already been done) and go with an efficient design that is going to do what we need for the long term. Not cobble together something from existing shuttle parts to make congress people happy. Is such a thing possible in a reasonable time frame? Possibly not the way things work now.

The congress people who care enough to write up these bills likely cannot be convinced to do any major change of course from their proposed budget as long as that change meant the money wasn't going to come to their states.

As far as heavy lift, I do think we should be getting serious about doing something about it rather soon. But NASA needs to get a firm handle on what that design will be and then efficiently execute the detailed design and produce it. Too much time at NASA nowadays is spent in meetings and building bureaucracies rather than doing real rocket work. And in the very near future a mission for that rocket needs to be developed and efficiently implemented as well. And that won't be with infinite money so part of the deal has to be dealing up front with realistic budgets, both from Congress and for NASA. REALISTIC! Not the gilded designs that go far over budget and far over schedule because we can't afford that any more.

Every one of the false-start projects mentioned is a manned mission. Certainly there have been robotic missions considered, started and then dismissed. However, the false-starts of the Manned program has been extremely costly to NASA. One cannot compare the two.

The robotic programs have had changing objectives over the years and it has remained frutful and inexpensive because the risk to human lives is very small in SMD. Missions can be executed, data returned and objectives revised. NASA's manned program does not have the luxury.

The objectives of the Obama led adminstration are clear. Move what is now routine to commerce, focus on new technology and particularly those that will facilitate manned missions to deep space. The manned program will need pathfinder missions some which can be carried out by robotics, others that will require astronauts on-board. We do need to press into new technologies that in the long rum will lead to achieving our goals of Mars, Asteroids or return to the Moon much faster than stating the obvious - "we will go to the Moon", "we will go to Mars", etc. The chaos in all this struggle with objectives and funding, lies in the house and senate representatives protecting their financial assets back home without concern over the short or long-term cost to the NASA.

We CAN save the space program, and given the President's attitude to space, it will have to be Congress that forces the Administration to act. Here is how to start:

Key astronauts, engineers and space advocates must unite upon one bold "in this decade" plan which offers the public near-term goals, such as establishing a lunar base and visiting a near-Earth asteroid in THIS decade, and launch to Mars by 2022 or 2025.

Then we can put pressure on Congress to pass a carefully-worded bill to force the Administration to comply and return America to space.

Without a single, bold plan, the public will not get excited. Without support of the leading astronauts, we will not be able to overcome the Administration's "experts" who will continue to profess leaving Earth Orbit must wait decades.

Of note is that China didn't get the memo to wait until 2035; for their plans are to start building their own space station next year, complete their heavy lift system by 2014, and land on the Moon in 2017. Why give other nations a head start of decades to seize leadership in high tech--and the resulting investments and jobs that go along with technological leadership?

For more information and to find out how YOU can help, visit the Coalition to Save Manned Space Exploration:
http://www.SaveMannedSpace.com

"check back in 10 years. We'll be lurking in LEO, buying rides from the Russians and Chinese indefinitely, and paying whatever price they choose."

We'll be buying rides from SpaceX long before then.

Posters, Imeant sidemount seems eliminated, in-line specified. My proofing error!

Is this a good precedent for Congress to follow in specifying the technical details of a new launch system?

Sure, if you want to build a pork launcher for decabillions in development plus billions per launch. But Congress doesn't really care if the pork launcher ever flies; it only matters to them that aerospace interests in the aforementioned states are kept busy.

I suppose Congress could find more despicable ways to squander our national treasure... maybe a cash-for-clunkers program that terminates venerable deep space missions so that we can build more shiny new probes?

@JMS50: some folks want to trash startups like SpaceX very, very much. And some of these some have real power to try to do that. Isn't that ironic, rightwing trashing private enterprise? How low one can step to save his pork...

General comment: congress designing rockets = recipe for disaster. Because Constellation worked SO WELL. This is just like violence: if this does not work, use it more. Jobs program and pork in all of (un)glory.

Oink!

Frank, I wonder if what we are seeing is a backlash from 1) The options given to us by the Augustine Commission, and 2) The choices made by President Obama in moving NASA forward (or backwards, depending on point of view). The problem with Congress is that they try to micromanage everything for there own selfish reasons, while NASA for some time now (going back to the 70's), seems unable to plan or promote anything beyond some short sighted goals.

So 1) No! Congress should not be "in the mud" when it comes to specifying the technical details of whatever is being programed. But they should set some limits to what the program is or should be.

Therefore 2) By giving NASA a total budget to work with on said project, with CBO and GOA audits, and an time limit to complete said work. Congress controls the money, and by zeroing the NASA budget when it looks like NASA is playing games, might keep them in line.

Which come down to 3) Who said we're rushing. We have been waiting for a new heavy lift vehicle since the Saturn V was retired. NASA could of came up with some type of design in complement with the shuttle, but nooo. The shuttle was the gem of NASA and nothing was allowed to compete (ie. Venture Star). Atlas, and Delta we're designed to meet standards for military missions, and Falcon is still in the test and development stage. Given what we have, and with the near retirement of the shuttle, I think we should be happy we have a space program at all.

The pendulum has swung and Occam's Razor says that this level of specificity is meant to pander toward the Shuttle workforce as much as possible.

In the end, does the debate really even matter? What do you think Vegas would give the odds that whatever this new iteration of NASA human spaceflight "direction" is- will ever see the light of day, much less Pad 39? 5:1? 20:1?

I'm not sure they are even that good.

It's no big deal. The SLS has 3 versions and it's looking like 3 variations of Ares V without the name.

Senators just didn't pull that language out of their backsides. They came up with the basic requirements based on existing technology and ideas(and powerpoints.

If they would have required something completely different, then it would be an issue. Considering the circumstances, it's logical enough.

"check back in 10 years. We'll be lurking in LEO, buying rides from the Russians and Chinese indefinitely, and paying whatever price they choose."

We'll be buying rides from SpaceX long before then.

Only if SpaceX etc. are allowed to survive. Congress keeps raiding the small commercial budget to top up the large government design budget.

Although I think generally you are trying to do the right thing, your draft timetable is not realistic and several of the major features of your plan are precisely what has been contended for the last several years.

Frank et al,
What is happening in the Senate may be politically expedient to serve the interests of affected states, and certainly legal.

And it is highly dysfunctional and will result in a future for NASA that looks very much like the past.

Lots of money spent on something new for HSF with no results.

A1: This has been the case "in effect" for years. The major impediment to replacing the Shuttle was the very industry that operated it and actively continues to lobby to protect its piece of the pie. Also, I'm sure Congress has not been happy with the legal slight of hand that NASA and the White House have been attempting to use to circumvent Congress. Hence, the explicit language protecting the big guys.
That said, no, I don't think it's a good precedent for Congress to write technical specs into law. If that design is flawed it will take "An Act of Congress" to fix it.

A2: Offer an alternative that will protect or improve their collective political standing. Logic, reason, and the laws of physics need not apply.

A3: Follow the money. This project is payment for certain centers and contractors to get onboard and stop complaining. Even if it had a destination or a mission, there is no money to support both the development and operation and a mission to anywhere other than LEO. We are well below critical mass of dollars in manned space to make anything happen at the current efficiency level.

Blame games and impossible ideas. How can democracy function with so much disagreement?

Readers should find some expert consensus and support that instead of their own hair brained ideas.

I support the Advisory Committee on the Future of the United States Space Program and Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry and Columbia Accident Investigation Board and President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy and Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee reports.

What expert consensus do you support? The one that says we need 2020 moon bases and 120mT to orbit? Who are they again?

Is it the same body of experts who support Shuttle extension?

Close your eyes and go LALALALA, moon basers. An extra $10,000,000,000 per year is coming to make your dreams come true. Any day now.

Say you've been buying all your cars from salesman A since the 60's. Salesman B walks in and says "I can sell you cars for 10% the going cost!".
It sounds like a great deal... but can you say that in ten years everyone will be buying their cars from Salesman B?

Its an assumption that leaves out a few factors. We aren't sure what Salesman B's cars are like in action, or how good his service is. Obviously he says its going to be great, but that is what salesmen do.
Even assuming they are everything he says, won't salesman A try to step up his game?
He's been doing this longer after all, he knows a thing or two about making cars. Maybe his haven't been cheap for a reason that Salesman B is going to discover (or will avoid mentioning until he has your business in hand). The market hasn't been entirely devoid of competition before now. Maybe Salesman A can do a better job if he gets to play by the same contractual rules as B.

What NASA needs is the flexibility to investigate more than one option at a time.
The deeper problem will be that its an agency that doesn't always use its flexibility wisely and has a historical tendency to not finish the things its started.

Without resolving that... even if SpaceX wins out in the future what is to say we won't be held back buying old expensive vehicles when the next big breakthrough comes along?
A newspace company is just as prone to greed as a mil-industrial. Everyone focuses on the bottom line in the end.

Q-Is this a good precedent for Congress to follow in specifying the technical details of a new launch system?

A-This question assumes that Congress is doing something new. As I see it, Congress has always seen to it that it’s political relationships with industry and the local work force were served. In the past they had a White House that was in on the game. This white house decided not to play the game and see what they could get away with. Congress spanked them and let them know they didn’t ask for no stinkin revolution and they aren’t interested. So they made the point by getting specific as to how NASA was to dole out the gravy. The Congress could care less whether it results in a usable rocket or tennis balls.

Q-If not, then how can Congress be persuaded to let the design work be done by NASA?

A-Congress is only interested in one thing. Getting reelected. The White House needs to grow a pair and be more concerned that Congress fear and respect them. When they find a way of doing that then Congress
will suddenly grow less interested in rocket design.

Q-Why the rush for a new heavy lift vehicle: What is it for-and do we really need one sooner rather than later? Can we make do on the short term with existing Atlas, Delta and falcon boosters?

A-I can see no practical space program that won’t require a heavy lift capability at one point or another. Just how heavy and just how soon depends on what you want to do and when you want to do it. Clearly
the way to go for a heavy lifter is lox/hydrocarbon with a cost effective reliable engine. So there is no good reason not to get busy designing and building one. The administration was clearly trying to punt this
function down the line so they could be spared the demand for a specific decision (and funding for) on what we want to do and how soon we want to do it. The decision to leave these details out of the budget rolled out in February was not accidental or due to any rush. It was clearly to enable the administration to avoid any major funding of beyond LEO activity. Unfortunately, the HLV congress is requiring in such detail is simply the first target for the budget cutters ax. A more mundane requirement for an immediate start on a NASA version of the Merlin 2 might have made it past the ax.

It makes no sense to build HLVs now without also concurrently funding the upcoming missions that will use them. Without these missions, the HLVs might as well rust on the launch pad. Funding for these missions is not addressed in the proposed legislation, a clear indication that the bills seek to abuse NASA as a chain of local employment agencies rather than building it up as an exploration agency.

Designing the HLVs should be left to qualified aeronautics engineers and scientists and not politicians narrowly focused on prolonging 1980s technology jobs in their neighborhood.

Expect NASA and the Administration to assert themselves after the mid-term elections. For the moment, they will be thinking there is no need to slap Congress or the Senate back into line when both are pre-occupied with local re-elections.

OK. Now say Salesman A hasn't sold you a car since 1981.

You've made down payments on several, but the money mysteriously vanished and you never got a car.

Or do you mean "Salesman A" is Boeing & Lockheed and so on? Because that's not the issue; the issue is should Congress be handing these companies these kinds of specifications instead of letting them do their work. These companies have built launchers. Just not under NASA's lead.

Congress wants NASA to develop a replacement for the Shuttle. When the paper studies and even test flights are done, Congress looks at the cost and cancels the project because it "costs too much". Said cost is often much less than DoD weapons systems which are funded and vigorously defended by Congress. They want human spaceflight on the cheap and are unwilling to either commit the funds or accept the risk of losing crews.

The main problem with moving forward with NASA is not cost overruns or lack of good leadership for the agency but 536 managers only interested in the next election. Going back to the NASA model would be preferable, but unfortunately past Administrations have allowed Congress to nanomanage the Government, and we will neveer see that hands-off approach ever again.

Geez, I've never seen so many cynical self-destructive nay-sayers in any other venue than pro-space bloggers.

Congress is stating as strongly as possible that NASA must have a robust HSF program that provides full access to all cis-lunar space. In case you missed it, the definition of cis-lunar space includes everything from Low Earth Orbit all the way to the Moon's surface. What more could you possibly want from a national space policy?

Sure, they had to nail down a few details with more specificity than normal, but look what happened with CxP. And look how the current administration has tried to side-step the clear will of Congress with the termination liability debacle.

Congress has been more than patient with NASA. They have ponied up billions a year for many years. Now NASA needs to deliver.

Mark S.

"past Administrations have allowed Congress to nanomanage the Government, and we will neveer see that hands-off approach ever again"
Then you are all screwed. Not only space, oh no. I mean in general. From some time, I start to think that our times will be described by future historians as beginning of end of american superpower.

It will take some time, maybe hundreds of years. Roman empire did not fall in one day too. But it already begun.

Better start to learn chinese, kids...

I don't know, maybe I'm nuts but...

(1) I just can't help agreeing with rkoenn. Congress is interested in one thing, reelection. To accomplish that they need to keep existing money flowing. I've spoken with many congressional members over the years about the space program and can say, without a doubt, that the majority of them wouldn't know a rocket from a snow cone (mention hydrazine and watch their eyes glaze over) and have little or no interest in space outside of how much money the program brings into their districts or states and how that translates into votes. And that is precisely why they are trying to mandate design.

(2) I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want to go to Mars without first having the support systems responsible for keeping me alive thoroughly tested and retested on the moon. C'mon, I mean...DUH! We have this great little moon only a couple of days away (close enough to send a rescue or resupply mission if the cooling system suddenly goes haywire) that we could use as a testing station and learning vehicle and we're saying, "Screw that...let's just throw some left over shuttle crap together and go to to Mars or an asteroid and see what happens." In the words of Seth Myers and Amy Poehler, "REALLY, CONGRESS? REALLY?"

With that said, shouldn't our first priority be a heavy lift vehicle capable of enabling us to build a small city on the moon where we could test our technologies and equipment for venturing further into space sometime in the future? Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to see someone land on Mars tomorrow. I WANT to know if there is or has been some kind of life there and if the planet is suitable for terraforming (we may need it). But now is not the time. We're just not ready and probably won't be for fifty to a hundred years if we maintain our present budgeting. So maybe our directive to NASA should be, "Do what you have to do to build a lunar city where we can test our gear for venturing further into space and continue the search for life in the solar system by perfecting and launching a drilling mission to Europa... there are probably living things under that ice. If so, find them."

Oh, wait... I forgot, sorry. "All These Worlds Are Yours Except Europa. Attempt No Landing There." Never mind.

It's my understanding that Congress approves the President's request for NASA's spending. It makes no sense for Congress to pass a law telling the President what funding he must request of it in the first place.

It's my understanding that Congress approves the President's request for NASA's spending. It makes no sense for Congress to pass a law telling the President what funding he must request of it in the first place.

Your understanding of the legislative process is flawed. The president proposes a budget, but Congress is under no obligation to even consider it. Laws originate with Congress, not the president.

Congress passes laws. The President executes the laws that Congress passes. The Judiciary interprets execution of the law when there are conflicts, and the Constitutionality of laws that Congress passes when needed. Each branch of the federal government has its own Constitutionally mandated function, and cannot assume the roles of the other branches.

Congress can be as vague or as specific as they want to be when passing a law. The President can request passage of laws it deems desirable, but Congress does not have to do so. Likewise, the President is not obligated to sign into law any bills coming out of Congress that he doesn't like. Thus the term "checks and balances".

Congress has decided to keep a close watch on NASA after the past six years of wasted time and money. I can't say that I blame them.

Mark S.

The budget request of the President is not an introduction of a law for passage.
He or she request whatever he or she wants. Of Congress is not obligated to approve it, if they did there would be no point in going through the formality of approving it; that would be a waste of time for an inevitable result.

The point is, the Congress can't tell the President what to request. that would not make sense either.

I repeat that the dictate by Congress for NASA to request funds for specific rocket designs is a violation of the separation of powers. All that Congress can do is refuse to grant funding for proposals they don't like.

Sorry, as someone rightfully posted, your understanding of the Constitution and the concept of the "separation of powers" is seriously flawed. Your example proceeds from a false premise.

Congress doesn't have to fund anything that it doesn't want, of that we agree. It follows that by not funding what it doesn't want it will fund only what it wants. If the Executive Branch wants funding for something then Congress is within its authority to expect it to be done its way or no way. The power of the purse strings and to pass law belongs to Congress. Simple.

Flash001, I hate to ask but are you even an American citizen? Do you know anything about the Constitution? Your questions lead me to believe that you have NO idea of Congress's role. They can write into the authorization bill and the appropriation bill anything they choose. How do you think they get pork projects in their districts?

Now as for Frank's bigger point. This is all Obama's fault. If he had shown leadership and said let's build the HLV now, then he had a chance to get some Senators outside the normal space business to support it. Instead he gave vague answers and no direction. It is not good for Congress to be this specific, but it is the way things work in DC.

> This is all Obama's fault. If he had shown leadership

Obama chose some of the greatest minds in their fields to fix NASA's many problems. And he tried to pass into law almost exactly what they wanted.

And "this is all Obama's fault." A failure of leadership. You're full of it.

I bet you support tax cuts too, right? To pay for your HLV? And don't forget the moon base it is going to fly, right? (Ignore the news that the country is technically bankrupt unless taxes double or everyone gets their entitlements cut.)

The only people at fault are the voters who don't care. Their representatives who fund an impotent human spaceflight program. And NASA employees, with their deadly hubris, failing to execute time after time.

You need a printout of the CAIB on your wall. Maybe it will remind you of who you can trust. Hint: it isn't old NASA leadership, and it isn't old Congresspeople. You've already trusted them and they failed.

But no, you've got Obama to blame! What a job you've done rationalizing that! Obama is responsible for the NASA not having enough money to fulfill your dreams! You poor guy. Let me draw you a picture of a bigger rocket.

1. Congress cannot tell the President what to request in a budget for an Executive Branch organ, like NASA.
2. Congress cannot tell the President what to tell NASA to do.

Congress has the power of the purse strings in this matter, that's all. If they can just write things in that they want, why would there be a problem for them with Obama? Why would they have passed that strange law earlier saying that the Executive Branch should not remove Constellation things from the budget? They could have just added them back in, if what you say is true.

Yes, it's Obama's fault about manned space direction, but I'm only talking about the Constitutional issue.
(It's also George W. Bush's fault.)

Do I understand the Constitution? Do Congress and the President understand it? Why are they having these strange budget-legal problems now? It's evidence of a Constitutional issue, and it probably should go to the Supreme Court. I think Obama would win that case.

Is this really *any* different from "earmarks"? All it does is ensure that ATK is getting a piece of the pie... along with the other existing NASA contractors.

I already agree that this is stupid, but, then, this is a political decision and calling it stupid is a redundancy.

Somehow I do not think some of these folks will be happy w/ SpaceX's subsequent Falcons being flyable and man-rated before NASA can get past the first set of powerpoint slides.

There *are* advantages to using no technology that isn't sitting on a shelf, somewhere.

I'm not going to add anything to the discussions above, except to point out that only part of the problem is being addressed. Even once a program has been funded (sufficiently or not), NASA doesn't have free reign. The various committees and subcommittees continue to breath down NASA's neck changing things and thereby invalidating existing program planning. And who sits on these various committees? Not NASA, not the president...

Steve

Several people tell you that your understanding of the Constitution and the functions of the branches of government is flawed and you "think" that enumerating your points and simply rephrasing your "reasoning" will change the minds of those that are correct? Amazing.

By the way, it's not just Bush's fault. It is the fault of every administration and Congress starting in 1967 and culminating in 1970 when NASA Administrator Thomas Paine permanently halted Saturn V production. Thus began the sorry trip down the road on which we find ourselves.

The fact that something is law or political process does not guarantee that it would stand up to constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
Very often laws are challenged on the basis of constitutionality. I'm saying there's a constitutional issue in Congress legislating exactly how the President should run an Executive Branch organization. I have a right to claim that. Citizens do have the right to claim that something is unconstitutional. You can't just inform me that I'm "wrong" and that's the end of it. You're not the Supreme Court.

"Somehow I do not think some of these folks will be happy w/ SpaceX's subsequent Falcons being flyable and man-rated before NASA can get past the first set of powerpoint slides."

Sorry souperb, I'm afraid you have that backward. NASA is already pressure proof-testing a man-rated Ground Test Article vehicle and Space-X hasn't even started down the man-rating path for Dragon. Space-X is not going to be able to make up their own rules for human rating. They have to follow the same, very detailed, path that NASA does and NASA is years ahead of them.

They may get there some day, but until they can stop the uncontrolled roll and get a better heatshield and ECLSS system, they are going to have a hard time even getting a cargo vehicle safely back to Earth.

Also, Elon is not going to be allowed to shortcut the process as he desires. Won't happen.

RC, I seem to have struck a nerve here. Tell me who the great minds are that Obama consulted when he made this "bold" plan up?

What does my position on taxes have to do with my comments? Are you implying that if I am a Republican or conservative that I have a knee jerk reaction to all things Obama? My political leanings, which you have no idea about, have nothing to do with it. I have been in the space business for a while and I know for a fact that his plan was not a plan at all. It was just a blank page. That is not leadership. The fact that he has allowed Congress to write every major piece of legislation with little or no Executive input (think Healthcare, stimulus, cap and trade) shows he is not a leader so why should we expect space to be any different?

Cheer up and have a nice weekend. Life is too short for you to have this much anger.

I never claimed to be the Supreme Court so I don't really see how that charge has any validity here. As to the charge that I "can't just tell you that you are wrong and that's the end of it", I and others gave plenty of evidence and in one case used your own "logic" against your premise so that charge bears little merit as well.

Yes you have every "right" to your opinion and as every citizen (and some non-citizens) a right to claim that some process or law is unconstitutional, so what? You have made a nice recovery by reframing your portion of the discussion to one about rights to challenge the way government operates. Doing so in no way changes your original posts concerning the "separation of powers" and how the budget process works nor the Constitution.

By the way, according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has limits on its powers as well so it is not the end all that some would have you believe.

Good day.

spacedout, it's clear that you pride yourself on having a clear understanding of how our government functions, so it just sounds strange when you postulate that Obama made up this plan. Do you really think that Barack Obama, the President of the United States of America, actually sat down at his desk, collected his thoughts, and developed this plan? Do you think any modern presidents have personally developed detailed plans for any government agency?

Is it, perhaps, more likely that members of the White House staff worked for weeks with an agency team designated by the agency director to develop a long range plan? Do you think OMB might have been involved in that process? One might expect every new administration to go through a review and planning process for almost every government agency.

It is the tendency of you and so many other commenters here to believe that a busy executive, who has *much* bigger problems on his plate by the way, is personally invested in the minutia of this relatively small agency, that gives the impression that you see these events through an ideological lens. We assume that to be the case after observing which fundamental assumptions in a comment are the most divorced from the reality. There is a pattern around here in a lot of the comments...

Frank, I've been thinking about some of the questions at the bottom of your article.

"-Why the rush for a new heavy lift vehicle: What is it for-and do we really need one sooner rather than later? Can we make do on the shortterm with existing Atlas, Delta and falcon boosters?"

Let's start with the 'rush'. I'm not convinced that there is a rush. However there is a constrained budget that stretches out development quite dramatically. What this means is that it is probably take about a decade for the BEO version of the HLV (Call it SLS-H) to come into service, when you factor in the development of the upper stage, upper stage engine and the primary exploration payload, which will likely be some kind of BEO crew hab.

With this in mind, there is a certain practical wisdom to start early so that you don't have the Constellation-style scenario where you develop a payload or rocket and then have to wait ages for the other element to finish development. What I suspect is happening is that the plan will see first an LEO version of the rocket (SLS-M) and then budget switching to upper stage and payload development in parallel whilst the SLS-M performs useful work supporting the ISS.

So, the reason that NASA is being directed to start sooner is because it makes the BEO 'later' a bit less far into the future. It's going to take 'x' number of years anyway, but x from now is closer than x from 2016.

Can we make do with Atlas, Delta and Falcon? Hypothetically, yes. Personally, I would have started by planning to run Orion-LEO missions off of an EELV, likely an Atlas-VH. However, once again, constrained budgets raise their heads. You cannot simply switch payloads, especially something as complex as a crew vehicle, from LV to LV without spending time and money on necessary re-engineering and integration. Yes, NASA could likely field Orion on an EELV within five years. However, it would then need to be redesigned a few years later for the SLS. Once again, money that the agency doesn't have.

The strategy at the moment appears to be to have Dragon/Falcon-9 and CST-100/Atlas-V as the LEO crew taxis and Orion/SLS as the back-up taxi and BEO exploration vehicle. There will probably be no migration between LVs.

Whilst I understand Administrator Bolden's desire for a single common crew vehicle that can be launched on any available LV, the infrastructure and crew support requirements would be just different enough from vehicle to vehicle to make that difficult. Indeed, ULA staffers posting on NSF have made a persuasive case that a crew vehicle optimised for the Delta-IV could not ride on an Atlas-V and vice versa because of the incompatible positioning of umbilical towers and the limits on the location of crew access towers. A common crew vehicle is something to be planned for the next generation of LVs so that these issues do not raise their heads again.

> I know for a fact that his plan was not a plan at all. It was just a blank page.

Ignorant.

"There is a pattern around here in a lot of the comments..."

Reminds me of these guys.

Note the title bar, then the comments. I couldn't not take a screenshot. Crickey.

Gaaaare you wrote "Do you really think that Barack Obama, the President of the United States of America, actually sat down at his desk, collected his thoughts, and developed this plan? Do you think any modern presidents have personally developed detailed plans for any government agency?"

I concede your point that Obama did not personally author the plan. It was OSTP and OMB all the way. There was almost no coordination with NASA senior managers prior to the budget rollout. If there had been, then NASA would have been developing cost/schedule numbers (its called PPBE process in NASA) throughout 2009 to support this budget. They did not. That is why Bolden seemed so lost on Capital Hill when he testified.

Although Obama did not personally put the plan together, he is ultimately responsible. As for my earlier claim about no leadership, if he had recognized that Congress was not going along earlier he could have done something besides say we will pick a design in 2016 for a heavy lift. He failed. So Congress decided to take over, so now they are designing it for NASA. It did not have to be this way if Obama had lead.

"I and others gave plenty of evidence and in one case used your own "logic" against your premise..."
This is as vague and disconnected as your other characterizations.
So to make some real sense, would you be "in compliance" with the mandated Congressional designs, or would you be in defiance?
I can say that I would be in defiance. I'd call their bluff. I think their design dictate is certainly not binding and should be ignored. It appears to be either an attempt at intimidation, or maybe just grandstanding for constituents concerned about jobs.
I think their Constellation budget law should be challenged in the Federal Courts if it comes to that, and to the Supreme Court if necessary.
And yes, I still fail to see the "logical" error in my positions.

I guess you could argue that micromanaging is an affront to separation of powers, but going to the court is superfluous; the administration doesn't have to sign the law.

This is where Obama comes in.

He can refuse to sign it into law if they don't loosen their specs.

If the administration agrees to a plan they can't or shouldn't try to implement, than he's one more trombone player in an orchestra of doom.

Maybe NASA can pull it off though if they learned anything from the last round. In all fairness, it should have been possible to meet the specs if they stopped and reassessed the Ares I's core concept when they discovered they'd need billions of dollars worth of new engine development.

Honestly, an SDLV isn't that crazy, is it?

This whole situation continually inspires one to bang their head against a wall, but hypothetically, if they do meet the specs and we wind up with an HLV, there are cool things that can be done with such a beast. Huge telescopes, asteroid missions, etc.

The complaint is raised that they haven't planned out what to do with it yet...

Supporters of the BFR program make the same claim against technology development. (God forbid NASA develop new technology.)

But recall two things...

1) Washington is in continual flux. Why, just last year we were going to the Moon. We can't conjure up these 10, 20 year plans and expect them to happen.

2) The F-1 and other gizmos instrumental in making Apollo happen were not built for that purpose.

Flash001, are you being intentionally dense? Congress passes the bills (including spending authorizations and budget appropriations) that they want. The President can veto these bills if he disapproves, and Congress can override the President's veto if they have enough votes. If the President signs a bill into law, or if Congress overrides a Presidential veto, then that's it, the bills are now the law of the land. There is no constitutional issue.

Just because you don't like the way some things turn out doesn't mean that you can make up your own rules. Your first clue should be the word "request", which implies that such request has no force of law. It is only a matter of tradition, deference, and spreading the blame that Congress accepts these Presidential legislative "requests" in the first place.

Therefore, when Congress passes authorization and appropriations bills, they can be as specific (or as vague) as they like, down to the color of the paint. When they write that kind of language into a budget, it means that that is all they will pay for. If the Executive branch wants to spend the money, they will have to do it Congress's way. Otherwise, they have no authority to spend the money appropriated. Get it?

There are even laws on the books that state that the President must actually execute the laws that get enacted. He can't even choose to not spend the money that Congress has appropriated in most cases.

We all get the fact that you don't like the way Congress has taken a strong interest in creating a successful space program. The Executive branch has not done a good job of it for the past half decade, so the Legislative branch is now taking a stronger role.

We should all be grateful that they didn't just throw their hands up and cave in to Obama's planned evisceration of NASA.

Mark S.

Just a few lines on blame for arriving at our currant manned space quandary:
-Obama is to blame for a failed attempt to replace or fix Constellation, although he was right in seeing, even as president-elect, that it was floundering. He tried to replace it with a nothing rather than a something. A nation can't very well rally round a nothing.

-Other post Apollo presidents did not get a handle on a manned space purpose or needed future hardware.

-George W. Bush is the most to blame in my opinion. He was president during the period when the Shuttle replacement was a pending task. This replacement could and probably should have remedied the deficiencies inherited post Apollo--HLV, crew, cargo, space-tug, whatever.
Instead he gave us the highly questionable Apollo-like back to the Moon project. I think it was not a worthy Shuttle replacement, ISS taxi or promising future exploration system.
It looks like a spectacular failure at Shuttle replacement.

Nothing that you say about the budget process contradicts what I perceive to be the budget process.
Furthermore, my concept of the budget process does not vary one iota from: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/budget_process.htm

If you think otherwise you're imagining it. And how in the world did interpret anything I wrote to imply that I think that the president's budget requests are anything other than requests, subject to the agreement of Congress?

When Congress passed the restriction on Constellation funding, they were doing so because there existed a legal, Constitutional discretion for the president to curtail Constellation spending. They wanted to change that. They were reducing the Executive discretionary control over an Executive Branch agency, in favor of the Legislative Branch. That falls into the separation of powers context.
The design directives above are an attempt to shift more discretionary power to the Congress away from the Executive. The Apollo system was not designed this way.

Whether you like it or not, Americans should be aware and concerned about these moves by Congress to shift traditional powers so they can protect unpopular spending programs. They represent significant change and attempted change. A red flag needs to go up, whether you like it or not.

Okay, this is like talking to a brick wall, but what the hey...

Where exactly in the referenced page does it state that Congress must not be explicit in its spending bills? Or that the President gets to ignore anything he takes exception to? Or that Congress "can't tell the President what to request"? That is the crux of your argument, and it is not supported by the referenced page, because you are wrong.

The page explicitly reiterates exactly what we have all been telling you, and does not support your position at all. You know you are in bad shape when you can't even find anything on the freaking Internet to support your position.

Good day sir!
Mark S.

Ben, then let me ask another question: If the final budget makes it into law mandating an Orion capsule-what will be the means to launch it into Earth orbit for testing? The HLV? That seems to be a bit of overkill, doesn't it? Won't use of EELVs or Falcons be the only means to LEO? Surely not Ares 1!

Frank, the SLS has three predictable forms:

The smallest is the two x SSME version, which I call 'SLS-L'. It can lift ~30t to the orbit of the ISS. It is perfect to launch the Orion + signficant enough margin to compensate for engine under-performance, not that the service history of SSME-IIA gives very much reason to fear that. IMHO, at least, that would be sufficient for ISS crew rotation missions and crewed LEO test flights.

More importantly, it is identical to the 70t and 110t IMLEO versions apart from having to add extra SSMEs to an unmodified thrust structure and, with the heavy lifter, the upper stage also. So, you essentially have a common launcher system with near to 90% commonality for all LEO applications and about 67% to 75% commonality for BEO.

With regard to pre-crew testing, if the SLS-L isn't ready on time, then Delta-IVH+ (with RS-68A) should be sufficient. Why is this a possibility? Because there is no crew access and support infrastructure or control avionics integration needed. Instead, the Orion is simply a payload like any other satellite that the D-IVH carries. It is the crew support infrastructure and the vehicle avionic integration, allowing manual flight control and for the Orion's abort system to receive warnings from the launcher's health monitoring sensors, that turns a multi-launcher/common crew vehicle archetecture into something of a money pit.

On a side-point, I personally think that the Delta-IV CBC (core only) would be an ideal booster for the Orion aerial abort tests. Run them from Vandenberg to spread the wealth around and make the California congressional delegation happy.

So long as NASA resists the temptation to try to get Congress to fund D-IVH+ as a back-up crew launcher, the process should go smoothly. If they succumb to this temptation, then the additional costs would turn SLS and possibly even Orion into cancellation fodder.

"Where exactly in the referenced page does it state that Congress must not be explicit in its spending bills?"
Show me where I said Congress "cannot be explicit in its spending bills". What I said is Congress should not be allowed to be explicit after the fact of the President signing the spending bill, as Aderholt's bill does.

"the President gets to ignore anything he takes exception to?"
I never said that, you're imagining that.

Congress "can't tell the President what to request"?
Show me where it says Congress can tell the President what to request. The rocket design directive cited above is non-binding. They could only make that one of their budget stipulations, subject to the final agreement of the President. If Congress tried to make it binding, in the sense of an impeachment matter, it would be a major Constitutional issue.

-Is this a good precedent for Congress to follow in specifying the technical details of a new launch system?

NO FRAKKIN WAY should congress dictate these kinds of details!

-If not, then how can Congress be persuaded to let the design work be done by NASA?

Every space advocate needs bombard the committee members with letters and calls.

-Why the rush for a new heavy lift vehicle: What is it for-and do we really need one sooner rather than later? Can we make do on the shortterm with existing Atlas, Delta and falcon boosters?

a) An HLV is a very good idea in general - HOWEVER - The only reason it was needed for Constellation was because CONGRESS wasn't going to fund both Constellation AND the ISS!! If you use the ISS for in-orbit assembly of pieces lofted by say a Delta IV-Heavy (25tons to LEO) you don't NEED an HLV even to go to the moon. The ESAS specifically precluded earth-orbit-assembly (EOA).

b) If we had taken the $5B already spent on designing ARES V and used it to launch D-IV-H's we would have put up about 25 launches ALREADY!

c) Additionally, if you want a REAL HLV, build SeaDragon - 550tons to LEO at an estimated $600/lb! Think of it - a rocket big enough to launch Palomar Observatory - not the telescope mind you - THE WHOLE FACILITY. How much money could we save from the big 'Battlestar' satellites if we could let them weigh up to 1 MILLION LBS and be up to 75 feet wide??! Enough to build the entire system!


Emory Stagmer
Follow me on Twitter @VAXHeadroom

"when Congress passes authorization and appropriations bills, they can be as specific (or as vague) as they like, down to the color of the paint. ... it means that that is all they will pay for. If the Executive branch wants to spend the money, they will have to do it Congress's way. Otherwise, they have no authority to spend the money appropriated."

It's actually a little stronger than that. Back before Nixon, presidents could (and did) refuse to spend Congressionally appropriated funds if they did not agree with the project. It's called 'impoundment', and you can find a good summary here.

When Nixon did this, the Congress passed a law making it illegal to not spend money that Congress appropriated. This was challenged in court, and the court backed Congress.

So, if Congress appropriates money for something - that something is gonna happen. End of story.

Noel

The way the budget is being implemented by congress is a huge problem for a realistic space program. I would dare say that only 10% of the congress really has much interest in space. And of course those that do get themselves on committees that produce budgets for NASA. Those congressmen are from states with specific space interests or facilitie and of course they tweak the budget to get the money flowing to their state. I doubt that 10% of those care much whether the program is successful or not as long as they keep the money coming. To a person with a real interest in space, a realistic interest in space and not simply a wow I love space interest, they can see what is happening. I find Obama's plan flawed primarily because it doesn't give us a firm direction. And I think he is punting to leave this to the next administration mainly to deal with the budget issues. But Bush, who didn't have any space aspirations and simply put up his plan to placate the people in his administration and keep NASA going, didn't provide the support for a practical program. Without that we ended where we did, a somewhat grandiose plan that was primarily designed by the then NASA administrator that went significantly over cost, was technologically challenged, and could never be implemented in a realistic time frame. That is what the commission noted and why they came out with the recommendations they did. COST and SCHEDULE were primary considerations in a "realistic" program for them, sounds like good logic to me if you really want to get the job done. They even stated Constellation was doable but that the financing would need a huge increase and it would take far longer than originally planned. But our current congress really still doesn't get it. And there are 2 or 3 space state congressmen who just simply want money. Do you think Shelby actually has a dream? Hardly, he wants the money. So then this leads them to start designing rockets to assure that the money keeps coming their way. This has the makings of another multi-year fiasco where all this money is spent on unrealistic goals to placate certain congressmen and is doomed to ultimately fail because of this. But I think this is the deepest congress has become involved in micromanaging NASA because of this.

Some points on HLV's:

What payloads will they put on these early HLV’s?
Can they afford to build any payloads ready to launch before 2020?
It would take as long to develop the payloads as to develop the boosters themselves.

We do need definable physical goals so we can design payloads and then fit the boosters to the payload’s requirements.
However, Where we go is not as important as How we go (re-usable vs. expendable) in terms of success or failure.

If we are stuck with an expendable HLV, we want the “in-line” type of HLV rather than the side mount, and the 33 foot diameter tank vs. the 22 foot diameter tank. To land humans or anything heaver than a few tons on Mars will take a vehicle with a very wide base – at least 33 feet across. You cannot put such a wide vehicle on a 22 ft wide booster. It is of course an accident that Congress is pushing for the “in-line" design, since the purer “shuttle-derived" design is the side-mount. It would be very expensive to change it later and increase the side-mount payload.

Using the current Solids based HLV with no time for research or competition between designs guarantees that HLV launches will remain very expensive, since you have to manufacture the propellant and cast it inside the rocket. Liquid fuel can be pumped into the rocket and pumped back out if there is a delay. The huge 33' core tank with its engines would also smash into the water and be lost.

All the Congressional fiat says is that they want to keep the current jobs in the current locations and to hell with the future.

The expendable HLV design will guarantee that the HLV will be too expensive to build up either Lunar or Mars Bases, since you need 10-20 launches within a few years to do this, and we would only be able to afford about 2 per year including the payload cost. Thus they could be used for a few very expensive launches such as giant telescopes, propellant depots, space tugs, large centrifuge facilities, tests for Space Solar, Mars Sample Return missions.

But they could not be used to build up to or support bases on the Moon or Mars, or to launch lots of actual space solar components.

There are lots of designs for re-usable HLV’s, that companies could start working in within 2 years. Some of these designs go back 30 years or more and they are still viable, especially with all of the new materials. For now, we only need to recover or fly back the first stage of the booster.

To SpaceTruckin’
Lori Garver would not cooperate knowingly with any effort to deliberately dismantle the space exploration program. She has been a space exploration and development supporter for over 25 years and has a very clear idea of what has to be done. What the administration's program was trying to give us was AFFORDABLE HEAVY LIFT. We cannot do business OR much science in space when the heavy lifter still charges $10 or $25 million per ton to orbit. You “can’t run a railroad that way”..

For what it's worth, programs like SpaceX's key advantage seems to be that they know what they're going for, both in the long and near term, and can make decisions according to their specs.

The whole scheme Musk has reminds me of the VSE; with an eye on Mars, try to economically develop what's close to us so we have some economic grounding.

So they've found markets, like the sat-launch market, the Space Station, pressurized autonomous lab research (DragonLab) and "spaceflight participants" including tourists and foreign countries like South Korea who would be happy to have an astronaut program if all they have to do is buy seats and fund research grants, and not have to actually build rockets.

Then they build to meet these markets with an emphasis on synergy to take advantage of mass production; the same engine on both launch vehicles, both stages of their bigger vehicle, the same capsule for cargo, humans and lab free-flights, and so on.

I don't know if they'll ever have enough profit or business case to really expand beyond LEO; I'm not holding my breath for that and of course a lot of the nearer term goals are contentious anyway.

But if they could at least fill seats with the untapped "Space Tourist" market predicted by the NASA-funded Futron study, that would at least get American flight rates up a fair bit.

The Futron study predicted 60 "space tourists" a year by 2020 assuming a 20 million dollar per seat tag and considered the possibility that there would be no space station for them to go to, as well as whether or not people were afraid to go on a new capsule with less flight history than Soyuz (those surveyed were cool with it).

While the exact figure (60 by 2020) is off because their 2002-based assumptions about the supply are so far off, they did take a hard look at the demand and found that there are plenty of seat-fillers at such a price.

I'm optimistic that they will make it happen on their own dime. The main reason for the CCDev grant is to speed things up a bit so that NASA can buy American sooner.

I don't think that's a bad idea, and if they can find these "seat-fillers" and sats to launch than after all's said and done, it takes a lot of financial burden off the taxpayer to develop and maintain relevant infrastructure and manufacturing base. Regardless of semantic discussions about how "commercial" they are.

What payloads will they put on these early HLV’s?
We do need definable physical goals so we can design payloads and then fit the boosters to the payload’s requirements.

I think we already have the answer.

Why was the Shuttle built with a cargo bay the size that it was, 15ft in diameter and 60 ft long ? It was sized that way to fit already existing payloads of nearly this maximum size being flown, and it was sized that way because we determined that, for modular portions of a space station, a 15ft diameter accommodates pressurized modules that accommodate humans and their support equipment. When we started out designing the ISS modules, in 1984, ten years after the Shuttle design had been established, we did not know exactly what the modules would look like, but we had plenty of room to work with. One of the arguments we had was that perhaps the 15 ft diameter was too large, but we opted to go with the already set dimension. Out of that came the present day large modules (US Lab, ESA COF and JAXA JEM), and all of the individual large elements of ISS. There is already tooling around the world in hand, with Boeing, with the Japanese, with the Europeans, all ready to build new structures of the same kinds of dimensions.

Would we like to be able to place much larger elements in space? Sure, we would love to have that kind of adaptability and flexibility, but is that kind of a capability in hand with the Shuttle-based elements in hand today; probably not readily.

You go with 15 ft diameter payloads and know they will come in variable lengths. This capability served us well for all the variety of Shuttle payloads and for ISS.

Think about how the size of airliners was established in the 1950s. Boeing built the KC-135, setting their diameter to the USAF spec. Then along came the Boeing 707, and Juan Terry Trippe told them, after he inspected the first one, that it was about 6 inches too narrow. He'd be able to fit an extra seat and gain that much more paying passenger capacity. Boeing designed a joint that split the fuselage and allowed it to be widened by an adequate amount. All the subsequent Boeing airliners - 727, 737, were based on the same diameters and tooling and cut to the lengths required, until the 747.

When Shuttle was designed, how to stow all of the interior equipment and consumables was not thought about in great detail. It was decided to use something like a modular lockers. The size of which was based in part on the capacity of the trays that held the cabling in the Orbiter, since that was where the lockers would be attached during launch. How much mass could hang on those trays over the surface area available, computed out to a density. Based on the capacity and the nature of the equipment the middeck locker became the standard of measure. Then, when Spacehab and Mir came along, we knew precisely how large to build our lockers and stowage bags-exactly the right size to be compatible with Shuttle.

We used to talk about why were the Shuttle SRBs sized to their diameter? It was based on the gauge of the railroad tracks established in the mid-1800s.

Why was the Japanese module built the way it was. It was based on the height of some bridges built in the middle ages that the module had to be taken through during transport.

Sure, we could always do something different optimized for some unknown future configuration, but we already have a good starting place.

The Aderholt bill was written ostensibly because Obama would have legal discretion with Constellation funds otherwise. The purpose of the bill was to make that illegal, not to clarify or restate existing legality.
If it were as simple as Obama was already legally and Constitutionally bound, it would have been appropriate to take him to court over it rather than to pass a new bill.
Congress can be specific before the fact, and those specifics are part of the spending bill that is signed. Aderholt adds specifics after the bill was voted on and signed.

OK people, let stop the snipping, and work together. The Idiots in Congress can set the bar if they want, this does not mean that NASA has to stay at that level.

Congress says that NASA has to use SRB's, which does not mean that NASA can devote some time and money to get a 1.7 m lbs thrust kerolox engine. SpaceX is working on one now, why can't NASA help out. In the end, just because Congress says one thing doesn't mean that NASA cannot move about to improve the system above Congress's mandate.

Just remember that Congress is in the business of taken care of itself, not the people of this nation.

"The Committee will closely monitor NASA's early planning and design efforts to ensure compliance with the intent of this section."

This to me is disturbing. Even in its non-binding form, if the Administration chose to comply, there could be a chilling effect on NASA engineers and managers, and their basic freedom of speech. Many would be afraid to say or write anything that would violate the "planning" intent.
That may already exist in the common politics of any organization, but this makes it officially "Big Brother".
In 1958, President Eisenhower established NASA, whose first defined function was:
"(1) plan, direct, and conduct aeronautical and space activities;"
Looks like Congress is envious of that "plan" role.

Let's rephrase the title of this article in terms that the average person can relate to. Of course by that I mean the dreaded car analogy.

Should you decide what your next car should be? Or should you just give $40K to the car dealer and let him decide which car best suits your needs (as he sees them)?

NASA = Used car dealer
Congress = Clark Griswold
Ares = Wagon Queen Family Truckster

Once bitten, twice shy.

In principle, it would be better if Congress just specified the goals, and let NASA choose the best means.

But that's how we got Constellation. So far, Congress seems to be doing a better job of listening to the experts and proposing a reasonable design, than NASA has done when left to their own devices.

And it's clearly within their authority.

So I think it falls in the category of "unfortunate, but perhaps necessary".