Is Constellation Dead?

I'm pretty excited about this industry being viewed as groups of services that NASA may purchase from private/commercial companies. Change never easy, but when you look back on it, it's almost always for the better in these situations.

My brain is full of all kinds ideas of services a good group of entrepreneurs might come up with.

Well, I think that the jury is still out on this one. We've got to wait until Administrator Bolden speaks out at the start of February before we know whether or not NASA are dropping Constellation or if they are "re-imagining" it in a new form.

I have to chuckle over the comment:

Any plan that seriously cuts Constellation will prompt "a helluva fight" with Congress, McDaniel said, also cautioning against overreaction.

There will be fights over the budget, but any noise about NASA's will be lost in the din of more important national issues. Lest they also forget, there is another, just as powerful, advocacy that has been pushing for this new direction for years. This will counterbalance any type of insurgency on the part of pro-Constellation factions.

Couple of points in the article:

"Why are they called commercial if all they get is government money?" Horowitz asked.

"Both the current and former NASA administrators are on record registering their doubts regarding the safety of these new commercial contractors," U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, noted last year.

One reason, some observers speculated this week, is to reward contributors to the president's election campaign. One of them, Elon Musk, is the founder of a company called Space X, which stands for Space Exploration Technologies.

So instead of funding NASA to provide two rockets, which have undergone strict review, the administration is going to fund 10+ risky rockets with no oversight from NASA.

As it stands now, private space's history of manned flight is exactly equivalent to July 21, 1961, the day of the Mercury-Redstone 4 flight of Gus Grissom.

That's because there has been two sub-orbital manned flights solely operated by private concerns, the two flights of SpaceShipOne by Scaled Composites. To date, no private company has orbited a human being.

That's the simple reality of it. Private companies can roll out rockets as thought they were partaking in a May Day Parade in Red Square, but until they can prove their systems are ready, safe and cost-effective, we will be stuck on the ground depending on our Russian friends to help us into space.

And what will be the purpose for Kennedy or Marshall or Johnson? Not much! This will decimate Huntsville and the FL Space Coast and the area around Johnson. More engineering talent down the drain.

This reminds me of The Alamo and the turnaround victory at The Battle of San Jacinto.

History does repeat itself and the similarities here are stricking.

As you recall Santa Anna, i.e., the one person responsible for leading the Mexican Army in the attempted Texas Takeover was in it for the money since after his prison term, he became a very powerful real estate developer in New York.

And how long will we have to wait for this "new direction" to allow the US to return people to space?

"And how long will we have to wait for this "new direction" to allow the US to return people to space?

Quick estimate, expect an added four years past the existing five-year spaceflight gap.

That will account for two years of delay because changing program directions always slows things down by two years. And then another two year delay because one of the commercial providers is certain to blow one up, and that always causes an eighteen month delay (which I've rounded to two years).

(And, if any of you are about to say "but going commercial means we won't have the five year gap to start with, because commercial will do things faster"... what's the weather like on the planet you live on?)

Keith said: "Ares V is morphing into a commercially-provided HLV"

SDLV seems to be much, much more likely. Saves jobs, saves time, vastly increased performance over commercial HLV proposals... and it won't force the administration to expend political capital it's rather short on at the moment.

Is this commercial HLV from a source of yours, Keith? Or was it a part of the leakathon that I missed?

Keith's note: no, I just make all of this stuff to entertain myself. OF COURSE it is sourced - I just cannot name the sources.

(Don't tell me someone brought up the old "privatize the Shuttle" scheme for use with an SDLV... that concept still doesn't seem workable.)

After watching Bolden's interview in Israel, it doesn't sound like the Obama administration is firm on anything that they would propose. In fact, it almost sounded like the administration will probably have to negotiate the major decision on NASA's future with Congress.

I was also surprised that Bolden admitted that any attempt by NASA to go to Mars using our current technological know how would be a suicide mission because of the dangers of galactic and solar radiation. That pretty much makes any Flexible Path destination beyond the Moon pure fantasy!

Bolden told the Israeli's a lot more about the current state of our space program than he's told us!

If you haven't seen the NASA chief's interview in Israel, you can watch it at:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/135739

Its absolutely fascinating!

Marcel F. Williams

It truly is amusing to read some of you excited (some even chanting 'good riddance') over the possiilties of commercializing space travel, while quite literally thousands of contractors (me included) stand to loose their jobs should this happen. Comical, truly.

What happened to Obama wanting to shorten the gap? Or did the he rename it 'the cliff'?

How can human space flight (commercial or not) be expected to exist if such a huge loss of human capital is allowed to occur? Some of us work for companies that exist solely to service a contract (imoc, spoc, fdoc, etc) we can't just move on to a other contract or project, we just won't exist.

I guess I don't understand what all the hoopla about commercial companies is. Will they do a little bit better than NASA in regards to time and money, probably yes. But all that much better? As for me, I'm skeptical. At the moment I'm thinking about X-34 and Kistler. If I recall right, Orbital got close to experiencing a disaster when during a carriage test the wake/turbulence behind the X-34 broke loose some of the external skin on the L1011 and, I believe, broke one or more stringers. And, though not related to that story, the project ran a ground. And there is Kistler. Weren't they in the hole for $600M when they went belly up? And, I believe, that was just the liabilities. That may not factor in those people who gave unsecured investment (i.e. purchased shares) in the company.

So, who are we referring to by the term "commercial" Lockheed? Boeing? Orbital? SpaceX? Is the thought that Lockheed/Boeing/Orbital is going to be that much more efficient/better than NASA? NASA will still have some of its employees and overhead, and they will find/get another project to charge too. So the tax payers get to pay for that. And there may even be some wheeling and dealing so that the commercial companies use some of NASA's resources which are not covered by any new project given to NASA. More tax payer money. And, as always, the cost will go up, capabilities will go down, and requirements and political winds will change. As for SpaceX, Orbital was small and efficient at one time. Are they still as efficient? And lets not forget that Scaled Composites was sold to Northrop Grumman. At some point, will SpaceX be sold off to one of the big boys?

"One reason, some observers speculated this week, is to reward contributors to the president's election campaign."

On come on - that's ridiculous! That's not even speculation - that's outright fiction!

Well, think of it this way: We can buy Chinese rockets (modernizations of the Soyuz) and use them to launch Americans. We can then contract out to the Chinese to build heavy-lift launchers. We will need a lunar lander and I'm sure the Chinese will gladly sell us some. And when we get to the moon we can stay at Chinese facilities.

And there you have it, the Obama Space Program. Genius !!!

To spaceguy07: Wow, your last paragraph very nicely sums up all my feelings and I'm in the same circumstances. Very well said, sir.

Keith, the video from the Israli conference should be a feature in NASA Watch of its own. I am speechless after hearing what Bolden has to say.

This could be the best thing in the long run for the manned space program. The bureaucratic inertia of NASA has made it extremely ineffective and inefficient. Constellation was too broad and diffuse a goal and was unaffordable in the long run. Imposing lunar exploration requirements on the vehicle you need to get to LEO never made any sense. That coupled with soft systems engineering (or none at all) and pushover contract management have conspired to break Ares. I've seen contractors sell NASA on changes/new developments that were absolutely unneeded, costing millions on a single component! I've heard it said that “If we don't get XYZ technology in now, we never will!”. So, instead of focusing on getting to first launch and then allowing the system to evolve with the new techs, these folks applied enormous pressure to do unnecessary development up front. Now, I'm seeing cost-conscious contractors who are unwilling to make necessary changes that ARE needed to improve the robustness and safety of the vehicle. Out of control spending early on and lack of resources to fix real problems now are a recipe for disaster. Ares was supposed to be designed using the hardware and technology we have in hand. Instead, it has become the meal-ticket for the NASA support industry and the milking cow for many pet projects. When you select sole-source contractors early and eliminate competition, this is what happens.

Will the all-commercial to LEO solve these problems? Certainly not. Other readers have said it all: unproven, risky, safety?, etc. But, at least, if there is some competition for the access to space, we should see lower prices and a minimal amount of sandbox play. We might even see innovations that reduce risk and cost... The next problem will be providing (ie, funding) enough flights per year to support more than a single launch provider.

NASA needs to focus in on realistic, achievable near term goals. Unfortunately, the space program isn't in the top ten (or even hundred?) of critical issues facing out country right now, and isn't going to be for a while. The three major goals for manned space right now should be: 1) how do we get to ISS and back and 2) what the heck are we going to do at the ISS before we scuttle it and 3) perform 1 and 2 without creating another golden space-goose that costs so much to fly/operate/maintain that you can't afford to evolve past it! Accomplish that, then let's start talking about getting beyond LEO. Otherwise, we'll be stuck on this never-ending cycle of develop the ultimate vehicle/overrun/cancel/develop the ultimate vehicle/overrun/cancel.

Just for the record: I stand to loose my job too.

mogaruke and spaceguy07 - Have your read anywhere in all of the the doom and gloom news stories and blogs that NASA's budget was going to be cut? Almost everyone is reporting that the budget is going to go up at least a little in 2011.

Yes there is talk about investing more in things like technology development (good) and climate change (not NASA's purview IMO), but no one has stated that there are going to be huge reductions in funding for human spaceflight.

My bet is that there will be just as much money spent in human spaceflight, but they are going to shake the tree and get rid of some dead wood and bloated bureaucracies that have proven themselves incapable of managing a real flight development program.

I predict you are going to see even more jobs come about as a result of simply spending money more efficiently in the industry. And you are going to see an uptick is actual spaceflight related activity because the focus is going to be on getting things done on time and on budget, or you are going to be taken out of the game and someone else is going to replace you.

The most striking example of how NASA got it wrong from the very outset with Constellation is the fact that they settled on a program architecture that would have consisted of perhaps 1-3 crewed launches per year many, many years into the operation phase of the program (and probably permanently). That is an incredible step backwards even compared to the Shuttle launch rate. Who could possibly have come up with this and consider it a step forward?

I have worked in this industry for twenty years now and I am confident that there are thousands and thousands of competent and dedicated engineers like me that will continue to work in this industry in the years to come. What is going to change is simply the procurement strategy the government employs and the resulting management structure of the companies that do the work.

Then...

Kennedy.. We choose to go to the moon. we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

Now...

Obama.. We choose to abandon our moon plans, abandon our spacecraft in design, and abandon our inspiring goals. Not because we cannot afford it or it's too hard, because I never really cared. However, I will outsource some tasks because I need to say I created some jobs and make private industry not hate me so much.. or something.. mumbles something about science and stuff.

What an inspiration! LOL

Charles wrote:

As it stands now, private space's history of manned flight is exactly equivalent to July 21, 1961, the day of the Mercury-Redstone 4 flight of Gus Grissom.


That's because there has been two sub-orbital manned flights solely operated by private concerns, the two flights of SpaceShipOne by Scaled Composites. To date, no private company has orbited a human being.


That's the simple reality of it. Private companies can roll out rockets as thought they were partaking in a May Day Parade in Red Square, but until they can prove their systems are ready, safe and cost-effective, we will be stuck on the ground depending on our Russian friends to help us into space.

Pardon me, but were you just negatively comparing the reliablity of existing commercial launch vehicles with the 1959 vintage Redstone and Atlas launch vehicles?

Seriously?

Did you even consider checking the historical records before you wrote that???

This not the end of US human space flight, however, it is the end of NASA human space flight. NASA has had a stranglehold on human space flight for decades and I hope this is the beginning of the end of that monopoly. Maybe now the US can truly start to explore space.

To all those Republicans out there who are bashing Obama for this, I find that curious. You complain about the government owning banks and auto manufacturers, but when Obama tries to turn government human space flight over to industry, you talk as though it is the end of the world. You're all a bunch of hypocrites. As for commercial industry's ability to launch humans into space, they've been doing it since 1961 when they launched Sheppard into space. They just did it under contract to NASA. Oh wait, isn't that what we are talking about doing now?