Mike Griffin's ESAS Architecture is Dead

Good news indeed, if it comes to pass. I had hoped that announcement would come sooner. Still waiting to hear about CCDev as well.
MikeJ

FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if, as a political fudge to please Shelby, Griffith, et al, a stripped-down version of the HLV as an 'LEO backup' at least reaches the design stage, even if progress on a commercial launcher renders it moot. With regard to the need for such a vehicle, much depends on whether NASA heeds requests from its international partners to maintain the ISS to 2020. There are good arguments for it. However, there are also good budgetary arguments against it, unless some 'killer app' science project is found and soon.

I found Keith's comment of a single type of commercial spacecraft that could launch on any number of different LVs quite interesting. Making a spacecraft compatible with different LVs is a very difficult proposition. Most of the LVs' IUs do not speak the same language. They might not even use the same electrical and data transmission standards. It would thus be necessary to have the hypothetical commercial crew vehicle (CCV) equipped with a 'universal translator' of sorts; a data transmission box that can be plugged into any different kind of LV.

What is really interesting from Keith's comments about the CCV is the possibility that NASA may have a 'fly-off' competition as opposed to the current COTS-style milestone program. Various companies would be invited to submit proposals for a CCV and the ones who deliver by a deadline will then be assessed apples-to-apples.

IMHO, this would put the smaller companies, like OSC and SpaceX, at something at a disadvantage. Their products tend to be 'Polaroid'-style: Their spacecraft fit only on their LVs which fit on only their spacecraft. I suspect that the standard LV will almost certainly be the EELVs (with or without the new common upper stage) with the Ariane-5 and, possibly, the Angaga as back-ups if required. Will we see Crewed Dragon and Crewed Cygnus hastily re-designed for launch on the EELVs?

Considering that Constellation just held their PDR and it primarily centered around Orion and Ares I to the ISS, I suppose they can save a lot of time and write one all encompassing RID (canceling the two elements) for the March board. It took 5 years to get to this point, a re-baseline essentially kills human space flight. This more and more is looking like ISS deja vu with redesign after redesign.

Good news? Hardly.

If Orion is dead, I guess Obama will get his wish of no US manned spaceflight for 10 years. I think it unlikely that a new manned "capsule" can be designed, certified, and ready for flight in less than 5 years. For a company that's never launched people it could easily be 10 years before it's flying.

I'm sorry, I guess I just don't see any of this as good news.

ESAS has many problems and Ares I was already dead (it was merely awaiting burial), but with exploding federal budgets -- a growing fraction being untouchable entitlement spending -- the federal space program will soon be but a memory. The news that NASA will get to build a new "heavy lift vehicle" indicates the emergence of a new budgetary black hole for whatever remains of the rapidly shrinking NASA budget.

I am fully supportive of the various alt.space efforts and clearly, any human future beyond LEO will be largely a result of their efforts. But there are legitimate and serious national security implications of access to and control of cislunar space and our government is dropping that ball, possibly forever.

Nope. Not good news at all.

Excellent news! The Ares I / Ares V architecture was never going to fly, so at least now we have a way forward.

The new launcher will cost a small fraction of what the the I/V would have cost, since it will be making use of existing components (space shuttle main engines, stretched version of shuttle external tank, possibly the same SRBs at least initially). It'll also be available much sooner than Ares V would have been, for those same reasons. And of course, the fact that it uses existing manufacturing and launch facilities also helps reduce costs.

By re-targeting Orion as a true interplanetary spacecraft, rather than a low-earth-orbit "taxi", hopefully all the cuts that were made to it can eventually be restored (radiation shielding, air bags for landing, toilets, backups of critical systems, etc).

And support for commercial space for earth-orbital operations is even better news. Not only will it reduce costs, it will lead to some real innovation in spacecraft design.

I realize this is all still speculation and rumor, but if it turns out to be true, it's the best news for human spaceflight in years.

An undefined healvy-lift launch vehicle with nothing defined to carry with nowhere to go.... yeah, that's good news. At least SpaceX will be able to make a buck. But exploration? It's dead too, as dead as Ares I. I actually will die before people ever set foot on another solar system body again. I never really thought this country was so pathetic/apathetic. Then again, I've never trusted this or any previous Administration to have any sort of expansive vision anyway, so I shouldn't be surprised. As for me, I have already started making plans to leave the Space Coast within weeks of the final shuttle mission. Unlike some who "hope" to still have jobs around here, or "hope" to be involved in real exploration, I'm a realist and will be getting out of dodge, and out of teh space industry, as soon as I'm done riding out the shuttle program. No, none of this being reported, if true, is good for exploration or the people who live to make it happen. Good for small commercial launch providers? Perhaps, but not even close to being good for exploration.

This is excellent news. It is about time people are held to account. With the announcement of them canning Ares I and V, now there is no reason that those MANAGEMENT TEAMS can be lead out to pasture.

I don't think anyone in the room knows exactly what it will be but some derivative from Jupiter (DIRECT) should be expected. This rocket was designed by NASA, albeit in their off time, and I hope that the person who they install as grand pubah will not have "much" of a tie to what was once "CxP".

We need fresh blood. We need to allow our engineering force out their do their job and not play the BS games we have had to for the past few years.

And oh yeah, roll back Orion to what it was before we had to slash and burn weight.

VR
RS327

A large NEO rocket will be developed for what? What cargo? Where? When? Who shares in the costs? Schedule?

Lots of unknowns.

This is called punting.

If the interplanetary Orion is launched empty it can be launched on an ordinary Atlas V. No LAS is needed.

Whatever your perspective may be on Constellation, that image with the red x's through the rockets: now that's just cold...

> IMHO, this would put the smaller companies, like OSC and SpaceX, at something at a disadvantage. Their products tend to be 'Polaroid'-style: Their spacecraft fit only on their LVs which fit on only their spacecraft.

Are you sure about that? I can't find it, but I could've sworn that I saw an interview with Elon Musk a couple years ago where he claimed that he'd be open to selling the Dragon capsule to launch on other vehicles.

EarthShine writes:

"A large NEO rocket will be developed for what?"

For launching missions beyond earth orbit (both lunar and interplanetary). Think of it as Ares V, but much more affordable and available ten years sooner.

"What cargo? Where? When?"

Manned spacecraft, launched from Kennedy Space Center to the destinations described above, with test flights starting as early as 36 months from now.

"Who shares in the costs?"

Same as for Ares I and Ares V, but the costs are a lot lower. That means we can afford to develop a full Orion and (down the road) lunar landers and interplanetary vehicles. Development of those last two items *might* be shared with international partners, which would mean they can happen a lot sooner than if NASA has to pay for everything itself.

"Lots of unknowns."

Not really.

A lot of this follows from a report that was done last year by a panel (informally called the Augustine Committee) that was set up to examine why there had been so little progress on Ares, why it was so far over budget and behind schedule, and how to get the human spaceflight program back on-track.

The committee's primary finding was that the current program was in trouble, something that most people already realized. The report said very clearly that the only way the current program could continue at all was with a massive infusion of cash, which I think we all realize is not an option given the current economic situation. Even with the increased funding, the current program would result a huge gap in American manned spaceflight after the retirement of the shuttle fleet, during which time the only way to send Americans into space at all would be to pay the Russians to take them.

Fortunately, the committee identified a range of alternatives to that scenario. Those alternatives all involve abandoning the current program in favor of a more practical and affordable one.

Based on those recommendations, NASA has been examining a variety of launch vehicle configurations and mission types. It appears they're leaning towards a shuttle-derived vehicle which will be used for both manned and unmanned launches (the manned ones will use Orion). They would use that combination for human exploration of deep space, while opening the door for commercial providers to handle routine operations in low earth orbit (such as sending cargo and crew to the international space station).

There's a lot of additional information out there, but I hope this is a good starting point.

I see no real information yet to support saying Ares 1 is dead. As far as I can tell, nobody's decided anything officially.

If it's true, however, I expect that it spells the end of human exploration of space, at least from America, for the forseeable future.

The problem is that, while all the competing advocates agree that they don't like Ares, and will criticize it on any grounds they can find, justified or not... they will no longer speak in concert once Ares gets cancelled. They'll start shooting at each other and the program will be in chaos a heck of a lot worse than anything we've seen so far. And of course the new system--whatever is chosen--will have flaws and delays once it gets out of the paper-spacecraft phase, too. The delay will certainly be at least another five years, beyond the already-existing five year gap. And once we get to the point where the US hasn't launched humans even into Earth orbit for ten years, and the Space Station is a Russian owned and operated facility, eventually somebody's going to ask what we're spending all that money on, when we're not actually launching anything.

So, I expect this is the end.

Couldn't disagree more.

The Augustine committee found that NO option could be carried out within the budget specified. ALL the alternatives would result in INCREASING the human spaceflight gap and would cost MORE money.

That being said I am not convinced the current Constellation architecture is the best path forward, but at this point, $5 Billion and 6 years in, we may be committed to it if we don't want to lose all our aerospace workforce.

I'm not sure why the opinion is canceling Ares 1 will significantly hurt Marshall. If it is canceled, everyone at Marshall will just be reshuffled to work on whatever vehicle is selected... most likely a variation on Ares 5, like Ares 5 lite. And that has 2 liquid-fueled stages + boosters, instead of 1 liquid stage + booster for Ares 1. That means they'll likely have to bring in more people.

It would be beyond naive to think this would "solve all of HSF's problems"--but I guarantee it would put us on a better path than the POR, even if realistically it probably means another year or two slip beyond HSF-renewal in 2015 (which was shaky for CxP anyway!), especially wrt ISS crew rotation--but big deal, just pay the Russians some more rubles! Hope all this is not a "trial balloon leak" from the WH/Bolden to see the reaction (about 75-80% favorable on this board so far---and you can put me in that column, mainly for killing Ares-1 before it kills!) Shuttle-derived should be the option since it saves a bunch of KSC and MSFC/JSC jobs and should be an easy transition for MSFC Ares dudes. And the "new Orion" can actually be re-designed to do something useful, although it still won't be no "Shuttle replacement"! B. Roehl's summary is pretty good, although sounding a bit naive wrt the late, great August Committee! Frankly, I think MSFC (and hence Shelby) should love it---most there knew Ares-1 was DOA. Again, hope Keith has the true "inside poop" and hasn't been hoodwinked like the press by Balloon Boy! Onward and upward--Beyond LEO PLEASE!

And of course the new system--whatever is chosen--will have flaws and delays once it gets out of the paper-spacecraft phase, too.

Compared to Ares 1? The EELVs are well passed the "paper-spacecraft" phase. NASA just chose to ignore them as a starting point for Constellation.

They will no longer speak in concert ... They'll start shooting at each other and the program will be in chaos a heck of a lot worse than anything we've seen so far.

You lend to much credence to rocket fanboys.

Constellation isn't threatened with cancellation because of Internet flame wars on space exploration blogs.

Constellation is in trouble because it has been running for five years and is now farther behind schedule than when it started.

Augustine went in do some detail why the Program of Record was unsustainable and it had nothing to do with space hobbyists or new space lobbyists speaking in concert.

Bla, Bla, Bla. Smoke without fire. The fact is that NASA is not an administration priority. The Republicans concentrated human spaceflight activity into states Obama does not care about. He was fairly clear during the election that space was not his interest. So, I don't see how declarations of death for the use of Orion or specific policy directives by a website pundit hold much water. Unless you are willing to share some specific back story that shows you actually know anything. Nongovernmental projects will probably be funded to some extent. But does that mean that NASA is out of the LEO business? Who knows. I doubt Obama has thought 15 minutes about it. So, please keep the Jean Dixon predictions coming. I will take my entertainment anywhere I can get it.

Bet you don't publish this either.

Assuming the terminal illness of Ares and Constellation, it is shameful and sickening that the once-greatest spacefaring nation in the world now has absolutely no future in human space exploration...not, at least, without relying on past (and future?) enemies or some start-up private company to loft our people and payloads into the New Ocean we once dominated.

I don't see anything in this article that indicates Ares is finished (or Orion for that matter). All of this is pure speculation until Obama announces his plan and even then it's going to be a down and dirty street fight with Congress before anything of substance happens.

I personally can't get over the continuing drum beat from Ares supporters about how commercial transport is just a glint in somebody's eye while Ares is a "real" rocket. EELV's have been flying for years and while Ares is still a pipe dream, Falcon 9 is being assembled at the Cape right now. The first Dragon cargo module is also currently being built.

Editor's note: this is not "pure speculation". You'll see.

The only paper rockets in this fight are Ares and Taurus 2.

Many on this site don't seem to realize that the Bush VSE was the beginning of the end of human spaceflight. An unfunded mandate which NASA couldn't refuse but had no chance of executing within it's existing budget. Not only did Bush not follow through on his initial increase, he did not provide the annual increases that his own plan called for. Then Griffin manipulated ESAS to "select" his personal rocket concept that was incapable of meeting its performance requirements. After 5 years and $8 billion we are only now reaching PDR. At that rate, the Ares I would not have flown until 2020 no matter what program claims. The US was NOT on a path to have any capability for space exploration for the foreseeable future when Obama took over. We have already seen a $1.5 billion per year increase in our budget since he took office. If Obama pursues cancellation of Ares I and development of a large launcher supplemented by commercial crew access, he may well be remembered as the president who saved NASA's human spaceflight program. The only obstacle is people like Shelby who will sacrifice this Agency for forcing money into his state. If he has his way, NASA will be a jobs program with no real end product much like the existing Constellation program.

"The new launcher will cost a small fraction of what the the I/V would have cost, since it will be making use of existing components (space shuttle main engines, stretched version of shuttle external tank, possibly the same SRBs at least initially)."

Do you realize if you just replace Shuttle Main engine with updated Apollo main engine, you've just described Ares? In theory, it's a good idea, but the best way to design something that way is to define your needs, then see what you have that will work. Ares mistake was to continue with the SRB when it could be seen early on that it wasn't likely to meet their needs. That happens when politics get into engineering. Sad fact is that no matter what they do, politics will still trump engineering.

I've always thought the best way to fix the problem given the investment we've made would be to keep the Ares 1 upper stage and can the SRB for a real 1st stage rocket. It wasn't an option considered for some reason. Can anyone explain why that was never looked at?

"New Frontier", the U.S. has not had a manned space "exploration" program since we returned from the moon in 1972.

"Possum", as usual you have your pyramid upside down by blaming the wrong people. You can bet that Obama will not be remembered for a paltry $1.5B one time increase because even that doesn't get anywhere near what Augustine said the program needed. Save the program? Not Obama. He will be remembered for ensuring that he lived up to at least one of his campaign promises and that was to "redirect" NASA funding to education and earth science.

It's time to shut down Marshall, Stennis, JSC, Michoud, KSC and go home. Game over. The politicians, bureaucrats and naysayers won. Congratulations to the victors!

I'm guessing Keith that you know (or think you know) something that isn't yet out for public consumption. You're obviously far more connected than me so I'll certainly give you the benefit of the doubt. However, regardless of any White House decision there is still the significant issue of Congressional obstruction of any change in the program.

Don't get me wrong... I'm far from an Ares fan. The program has been so perverted from the original concept is sickening, not to mention all the capability we're going to lose when the Shuttle is retired in favor of a capsule. However, with all the false starts, grandstanding, proclamations and obituaries for the program over the last year, I won't believe it until it actually happens.

"Editor's note: this is not "pure speculation". You'll see."

If you hold yourself to the same journalistic standard that most journalist do, then your basis for saying that Constellation is dead needs to be more than "You'll see". I don't doubt that you may have inside information, but without any rational, you're just another speculative blogger. Is it a source that wants to remain unnamed? Circumstantial evidence? Neither article cited states anything either way, so what's your evidence for saying Constellation is dead?

"Editor's note: (sigh), let me try this one more time: this is not "pure speculation". You'll see."

I think you have it about right.

NASA had the opportunity to get an Orion and Ares on a fast track, but it needed to be a vehicle that was much smaller and lighter to fit the Ares 1 performance capabilities. If they had made good progress and if it had been flying soon, which it could have been with the right organization and people, and the appropriate design, then NASA could have saved itself.

As it was, poor requirements definition, Administrator interference and the failure of management to perceive technical issues and rapidly take honest corrective action, it took far too long to define a workable system and I don't think they have yet. The time and money that has been spent in the last 5 years was largely for nothing.

I don't think it will mark the end of human space flight; I do think that trust in NASA's management has declined to the point that commercial developers now have an opportunity.

It wasn't the bloggers or the naysayers; NASA and Constellation management created their own problems.

Commercial developers have done fine in the past when given the opportunity. NASA has usually only done well in the few decades when it operated in an austere, tiger team fashion; small numbers of people, experienced personnel, competent experienced management and clearly defined goals. Big bureaucracy; Constellation was trying to build another ISS infrastructure; rarely operates efficiently.

NASA now needs to step back and take a more traditional governmental role. They need to define the program requirements, the top level specs, verify compliance, work the international interfaces and make sure the stakeholders, the taxpayers, know what the government is doing and why; this is communications and education and it needs serious attention.

Its going to be tough for awhile as industry and workers realign themselves.

NASA during Constellation was trying to reestablish a fictional historical bubble where they somehow perceived great public support for carrying on where Apollo left off. Apollo ended for a reason; the public didn't support those kinds of government expenditures.

Most of us who lived to see Apollo will probably not experience humans on the moon again. Yes, its been 40+ years. It could be much longer. Remember the time between the first European voyages and the rediscovery of the Americas was hundreds of years. The time between the first discovery of the Antarctic and the first routine transportation and bases there was also hundreds of years.

The technology needs to be reduced in cost to where it can be done affordably, regularly and reliably. A billion dollar apiece, throwaway, once a year sortie vehicle was not a workable approach.

Technologically, we could have routine transports going to and from the moon, and bases operating there, in a decade, but not with the Constellation approach.

Falcon 9 has more real flight hardware then Ares I does... In fact I bet Dragon has more real flight hardware then Orion as well..

Are you really saying this is not speculation??? ;)

At least they won't go for the sidemount monstrosity.

The inline mount of a winged vehicle is attractive from safety viewpoint but very constraining from the launch vehicle standpoint: heavy sideloads will be caused be a top mounted winged vehicle due to aerodynamic forces, which need to be counteracted by the launcher. In the planned Ariane5/HERMES program this led to a limitation of the allowable wing surface of HERMES to a level forcing to split HERMES into two parts -one reusable, one lost. A bad but necessary solution.

A side mounted winged vehicle will cause lateral forces close to the launcher center of gravity and shift the total vehicle sidewards -not a critical situation. That is why the Shuttle Orbiter and Buran are sidemounted.

NASAs job is being scaled back to met NASAs actual capability. The exercises to come will just be a desperate attempt to keep the money flowing, that's what NASA does best. Over-promise and under-deliver. The fact that the taxpayers are being ripped off to support a massively bloated techno-dysfunctional entity will become even more transparent.

The public's "feelgood factor" is GONE. Sophomores can blame it on short term issues like the economy or having a lunatic at the helm. The naked fact is that NASA has failed in it's long term mission by any reasonable definition of terms and needs to be put out to pasture.

It's a smart move by the powers that be to start managing expectations now that it is obvious that NASA is so shamefully screwed up that it can't engineer its way out of a wet brown paper bag.

As for the blamers, have at it. There are plenty of apparent targets, at least one to suite each individuals whim and political agenda. Go for it. Wallow in it.

I'm afraid that NASAs slow death throes will poison any future American potential in space. A total restructuring of our nations approach to space exploration is needed. Unfortunately, due to the decline of our collective will that restructuring job will be given to NASA because they don't have anything else to do and the "Hey, aren't these guys the experts?" beltway mentality.

We are not at the "beginning of the end," nor the "end of the beginning." We are at mid game in the dismantling of semi-robust US manned spaceflight. This phase will be a "commercial" restructuring; and the "beginning of the end phase" will come with the end of life of Station... stay tuned.

Wow! I thought I was the most cynical old critic of NASA but Pawn (slightly) out does me! He's right on about the current NASA--its inevitable decline into the bureaucratic federal government mire is obvious and just about complete! A "new" agency for ALL US space endevours is needed--but, sadly, won't happen, as there is no national imperative that would allow politics and the bureaucratic inertia to be overcome! Maybe if the Chinese "shock" us with some startling and threatening acomplishment--hard to imagine---then the US might wakeup---but just not gonna happen. So, we'll plod along, re-arrange the deck chairs, establish a multitude of "new" committees and panels, pay lip-service to "great visions", and waste 80% of the taxpayers' money on pork-barrel infighting and re-distribution of wealth we don't really have--on into the night!
Sad, sad---been to this movie about six times (Shuttle re-design in early 70's; main engine and tile probs in late 70's; space station re-design in mid-80's, again in mid-90's; again in late 90's; now CxP (probably will "survive" in name) in 2010!Each time the agonizing and exponential time delay and dollar costs gets worse---the hallmark of bureaucratic evolution!)Something will emerge but it won't be pretty! Where is real national leadership? Anyone seen ANY sign of it?

All of this hand wringing is ridiculous. America is broke, people. WE've spent your grandchildren's inheritance. That we still have a human spaceflight program at all is, IMHO, remarkable. This is a different era. Shut up and take what you can get. The glory years are long gone. Want to see a vibrant expansive space program? Go to the movies.
Sad but an inescapable truth. WE've sat by and let the pols raid the piggy bank once too often-two wars yet no attempt at deficit reduction. Who is responsible for this mess? You and me.

Cheesus. Why is everyone here acting like this is the end of the world? Canceling the Ares I is a GOOD thing because the Stick was a terrible launch architecture that would have cost us a fortune for less capability than the uber expensive space shuttle! From the looks of things it looks like what is going to happen is that we are going to fund development of a HLV that is truly shuttle derived and will launch more than twice a year unlike Ares I/V.

I'm moving to Canada! Geez.

And, is anyone concerned about the ability of the JSC/MSFC HSF management culture that is managing Ares 1, Orion, etc. with managing the development of this supposed new HLV?

Well, at least you're being optimistic.

I think - as the included article of the NASA Safety Board indicates - that NASA is bound and determined to keep ARES 1. I find it hard to believe that one part of NASA is contemplating cancellation, whilst another warns against it because of costing and delay considerations: au contraire.
To me it's obvious that Bolden has been told to ditch ARES 1 it and this report is intended to counter that order if possible. This is reinforced by Bolden busily evaluating DIRECT's Jupiter 24X proposal while ignoring the accompanying J130 design which could be flying in two years time if adopted with some measure of haste due to it's commonality with existing STS hardware. I suspect that 24x will be adopted but ARES 1 will hoover up all available funding and there will then be NO ARES V lite or otherwise-or Jupiter 24X for that matter. The Russians will monopolize ISS future operations and I suspect REFUSE to de-orbit it when the US decides because neither Orion or ARES 1 will be operational by 2016. "Highjack the Space Station!" if Jefferson Airplane/Starship will pardon the plagurization!

You've hit the nail on the head.

If NASA is to survive in any capacity, then General Bolden needs to be looking very carefully at the screwed up management culture and the screwed up managers who got Exploration to this point.

If its done correctly, then I would anticipate that the entire existing Constellation organization would be disbanded. There are a lot of technically astute and more experienced personnel about to come out of the Shuttle program who would be more able replacements.

Management is the underlying problem.

Constellation had its flaws, but those were generated by the same decision makers that will be handling its replacement. No magic path forward is going to appear when we give up on a problematic system to develop another just like it, even if we go commercial.

To which, I don't think the death of Ares is good news. Its a delay that leads to another series of delays.

Management and the management culture especially at JSC is definitely the issue. Constellation was as much a symptom as it was the problem.

I think it goes back to the rise of the large, all powerful and all encompassing program office in the mid-1990s, which started first with the ISS Program.

They promote people into leadership positions in technical areas and yet the individuals have little or no technical experience or expertise.

There is a function for program management but it is not engineering, systems development, integration, operations... That was the reason there was a technical institution called the space center.

So you wind up with non-experts being put in charge of technical functions and deciding how the
true technical experts should work. You short change the institution.

All of the programs need to be dismantled, with their functions being restricted to top level program requirements, schedules, and budget management. The technical organizations need to be rechartered and reorganized; when the Abbey, Brinkley pair started screwing up the center, many of the technical organizations lost their way. Pretty soon you had operations trying to build and manage hardware; you had the astronaut office trying to lead vehicle design.

Its past time for some significant changes. It may be too late.

A jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one

After the special election in Massachusetts I wouldn't quite yet certify the demise of Constellation. The Administration and Bolden can plan all they want, but the November elections are right around the corner and the new Congress may end up not being too eager to fund the dismantling of meaningful space exploration and instead fund loosely defined 'energy initiatives' or turn NASA into a subsidiary of the Dept. of Education. NASA's budget is but a drop in the bucket compared with the trillions to be spent on programs that U.S. voters have just shown they're not as excited about as the Administration would make us believe.

As for Elon Musk, we'll see if he can walk the walk. So far his launch record is less than stellar. This reminds me of a lecture in College by Bede (the small jet designer) where he essentially trashed what we were being taught in college while braggeding how he would revolutionize air travel with cheap/simple designs ... and a few months later his new "mini supersonic" cheap plane disintegrated in its first flight.

Also, once the ISS is gone and no HLV available to launch replacement modules ... where will Elon Musk fly to? Perhaps to a chinese space station?

Why would any spacefaring nation make the effort to de-orbit ISS? It'd require substantial engineering and several launches (carrying deorbit motors). Why not just keep pumping the orbit up and wait for someone else to occupy it, like the Chinese?

Here's a cool question. AFAIK, the US cannot legally abandon ISS to nobody, because we require that space assets be safely deorbited. But if we formally hand it over to ESA, Russia, or China, what's to stop them from abandoning it later, for a random re-entry? Hmm. And one more thing-- what if the decision to abandon comes suddenly, as from a fire emergency?

Not to pick on Lowly Contractor's comments...his perspective is quite widespread. However, in the current atmosphere, too many technical folks have forgotten or never learned about the role of failure in the successful deployment of engineering systems.

Historically, this can be shown in any technical endeavor. To characterize SpaceX's launches as simply failures or successes requires one to not critically analyze the results of each flight. It requires one to forget these are the flights of a new launch vehicle coming from a new company...and the rate of flights with no problems is hardly instructive at this point. It is exciting they have progressed as far and as fast as they have without the usual spending billions more engaging in "paralysis through analysis" activities.

On the other hand...none of this guarantees continued success...operationally or financially. There are many risks on the road that lay ahead...and assuming that SpaceX will be able to launch crews or even ISS support on schedule and without incurring serious cost overruns just doesn't acknowledge the tough task they are/will be taking on.

In my opinion, it is a risk worth taking. But it is a task that no one can kid themselves about...it will be tough. But there is no reason to think that it CAN'T be done.

Papa FYI the legalities are moot! Technically the individual modules may be the responsibility of the launching nation but still the property of the builder/contributor. Is it barter or (semi-permanent)loan?
WRT deorbiting: whilst an America alone deorbit mission is planned (the Augustine Commission outlines the costs I believe) ...a seventh ATV could do the job once the station's orbit has sufficiently degraded.

BUT to address any who still support the ending of the ISS: sinking the ship and taking your friends with you is not a good idea. I would thus indicate, to such single minded Americans still remaining, as to how the rest of the world is thinking:
"In June 2009, Simonetta Di Pippo, ESA director of human space flight told the editor of RussianSpaceWeb.com..."
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/opsek.html
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8064060.stm

Any talk of abandoning the ISS is pure folly and the notion of "Station complete" political rhetoric.

http://suzymchale.com/ruspace/issfutmod.html

Mind you this space cadet still believes that bits of MIR should have been salvaged. But that's another story!

And how does Congress feel about this? They passed a NASA Authorization Act in 2008 and it states "Developing United States human space flight capabilities to allow independent American access to the International Space Station, and to explore beyond low Earth orbit, is a strategically important national imperative, and all prudent steps should thus be taken to bring the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle to full operational capability as soon as possible and to ensure the effective development of a United States heavy lift launch capability for missions beyond low Earth orbit." You can't say it is DEAD until the House and Senate weigh in, and may require another NASA authorization.

Does nobody get that we are on a single point failure path with the retirement of shuttle? What happens if the only crew vehicle to ISS is grounded (Russian), and the COTS crew vehicle(s) is not on-line and operational, or a crewed HTV,ATV..

"Does nobody get that we are on a single point failure path with the retirement of shuttle? What happens if the only crew vehicle to ISS is grounded (Russian), and the COTS crew vehicle(s) is not on-line and operational, or a crewed HTV,ATV."

Well, they're probably crossing their fingers and praying that isn't happening because, if it does, the politicians will just pull the plug.

The problem has never been that Constellation (Ares I/V & Orion/Altair) was a "terrible" architecture. None of the reputable technical studies done by companies such as Aerospace Corporation EVER said it was a bad architecture from a technical standpoint. Challenges, yes, inherently flawed, no. The only people who have tried to make that argument are people who are ticked off that NASA didn't like THEIR ideas because they are so arrogant as to think they know better than NASA. Whether they do or not, they are arrogant, which generally leads to bad engineering anyway. Yes, I'm talking about DIRECT.

The ONLY real problem Constellation has had has been funding. NASA's budget being decreased year after year forced Constellation to be stretched out year after year. But spending less in one year because of a budget shortfall only serves to delay program milestones which, in turn, drive up the overall program costs. That's where the so-called cost-overruns come from. If the current President as well as the last one and the last three Congresses had merely provided the full level of funding that the baseline program forecast it would require in 2005, then Constellation would be (close to) on-budget and on schedule today. Our wise politicians did not do that, and so NASA has been starved. The same thing happened with the shuttle, Skylab, Apollo and even Gemini. Zebras in D.C. don't change their stripes... EVER, "hope and change" not-withstanding.

That much said, is anyone reading this so naive as to think that as soon as Constellation is cancelled that Congress will stop starving NASA? REALLY? More likely, the starvation diet will incrase. And, oh by the way.... that includes the federal government support of commercial endeavours such as COTS/CRS. You don't believe me, you think that cancelling Constellation is all the commercial space industry needs in order to have the road cleared on the way to their Nirvana. If you do, you are wrong. When the commercial b/s is the only thing left to cut... Congress will cut it, and you won't have Ares I to blame for that. You will have, however, yourselves to blame. Meanwhile, if I and a lot of my friends aren't in unemployment lines, we'll be applying our expertise in other areas, possibly other countries, and the United States will be worse off... but at least we'll have Dragon. Nice.

Spacearium,

The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions, and arrogance always comes before the fall.

It was recognized far too late in the process (the need for system engineering practices) and a "crash program" was instituted within the past 28 months, to recruit and train everyone in these practices.

Constellation would have been a stellar success had the mission requirements been defined by competent and experienced engineers skilled in the art of systems engineering practices from the very start (hard learned lessons from Apollo, dismissed early on as so much foolishness).

We would have had an Orion capsule designed to meet initial "low earth orbit" requirements, with the ability to be evolved to meet longer range goals (moon/mars).

With the capsule identified, we would have then designed the propulsion system matched to support these requirements.

Instead, Griffin put the cart in front of the horse, and identified the propulsion system "the stick" as the "first act" to propel "whatever followed later" into space.

From this course of action the Orion capsule design was crippled, and safety sacrificed. The standard "3 string redundancy" was eliminated from the design when the capsule weight could no longer be lofted by "the stick". Further need for reductions resulted in removing crew from the vehicle.

How can you not clearly see this course of action as anything but a failure. It should come as no surprise that the Congress rightfully withheld funding for this reason.

I believe that you, and your friends are suffering from a severe case of Stockholm syndrome.

If it were possible for you all to step back for a moment, and objectively and rationally review what has transpired, it would serve as a very healthy exercise.

Dr. Griffin was a very commanding personality, and many within NASA "early on" in his administration had identified to various news media that a "cult of personality" had developed around him.

I feel sorry for you, and your friends having been "caught up in the moment". As history has shown, such commanding personalities, rather than being inclusional, stifle "honest healthy dialogue", and isolate those who challenge the great leaders increasingly irrational, arrogant, and delusional decision making. The zenith of such cultish behavior takes the form of a "us vs them" mentality. A smug superiority, and a threat that "all shall come to ruin", if their clearly superior
intellect and authority is not obeyed without question.

You would do yourselves a great credit, and gain respect by charting a "new course" in promoting an open dialog on what has transpired in this "program of record".

State your case with "real engineering data as evidence" and prove you are right, rather than leaving your statements to be received merely as a biased personal opinion.

"Meanwhile, if I and a lot of my friends aren't in unemployment lines, we'll be applying our expertise in other areas, possibly other countries, and the United States will be worse off."

I fear for you and your friends future, tarred with the brushstroke of failure, if you continue on this course of action.

The United States is not a dictatorship, it is a democratic republic. We do not cower in the wake of treasonous threats.

If you, or your friends employ your ITAR restricted knowledge overseas you are committing treasonous acts against the people of the United States.

Excellent post and right on target.

Sorry to disagree with you.

Constellation got considerable funding for a program not yet building and developing hardware.

The architecture does have significant flaws.

Even when the program management figured out they could not launch their originally planned and desired Orion with their original Ares 1, they still failed to reconcile the two for several years.

Other options could have given the US LEO human launch capability quickly and at more affordable costs.

Constellation management's focus was on maintaining, developing and growing their own organization.

What happened is exactly what we see. A lot of money and time spent. A workable design and program plan that meet the original intent and requirements is not in hand.

A new LEO human capability is further away now than it was in 2005.

jmangan nails it. It has been a system engineering problem from the beginning. Defining the Stick and then trying to shoe horn Orion onto it, is bass ackwards.

In addition, the architecture was never viable from a cost point of view. Griffin assumed CxP would get large funding increases. He wrongly assumed that the ISS would end in 2015.

Also, a smart person would have gotten out of the shuttle program long ago and still work in the space program while insulating themselves from the changes ahead.

One thing Griffin knew all to well, was that if Cx did't get something built and tested fast by the end of Bush' adminstration, Cx would be up for grabs by the next POTUS. That is why LRO was fast tracked the way it was (when was the last time in recent memory a directed mission over $500M was accomplished so fast and swiftly?) and almost launched before 2008 elections.

There are plenty of Earth Science missions that will benefit society far more than LRO, but they lack funding...and were not supported by Griffin the way Cx was. Today these missions flounder to make any progress.

Turns out Griffin was right. He failed as a 'systems engineer' to take the smart approach to determining a Cx architecture because he knew if nothing got flown by 2008 Elections, the next POTUS might cancel the whole thing. So he 'forced' things ahead of the systems engineering process betting Cx would get too much of a foot hold to be cancelled/altered.

It was a bet he took, and lost.

"there are legitimate and serious national security implications of access to and control of cislunar space and our government is dropping that ball, possibly forever."

I couldn't agree more with this.
I hope 2010 & 2012 get some like-minds to DC.

pspudis:
"...there are legitimate and serious national security implications of access to and control of cislunar space and our government is dropping that ball, possibly forever."

I agree also. One ray of hope is the X-37B. At least it can do some of the job. Maybe a larger, X-37 derivative could be manned.

>I agree also. One ray of hope is the X-37B.

Isn't the X-37B an unmanned vehicle?