NASA: Less Money, New Direction?

Yeah, he's committed to NASA. Committed to no increase in budget (not unexpected) and to the continuance of the redirection (education and earth sciences) for which he campaigned. Consistency if not leadership.

Andrew Hunter's chronology is consistent with what actually occurred which makes it all the more frustrating when you see what the NASA leadership did when confronted with the deck they were dealt. From top to bottom all of them pretended that all would be well and HOPED the funding would come. What happened to integrity? Why did they not take a stand and refuse to play this dead end game they have played for 4 to 5 years? The results were predictable but they were in denial. What a legacy they have left. If a new direction is given the current senior leadership from Constellation to ESMD should not be rewarded with managing it. They MUST be replaced or the same outcome will occur. While they did not deal the deck they did play it when they should have folded.

Is anyone really surprised by this? Come on.

And what is sad is, the culture at NASA that allowed them to 'hope' for future funding profiles that would match their spending profiles, is still going to be present. Not sure how you alter that. Thoughts anyone?

Replacing just the AA's won't do it. Look how much trouble Stern had with the SMD culture below him. It bounced him out of there.

The future looks much like the past.

While the Space.com article does a pretty good job of recapping the timeline and some of the issues, it seems to get one thing wrong and leave some things out.

Did Augustine actually ever say Constellation was well managed ? I'd like to see where this was stated. Can someone provide a reference or a link ? I do recall Augustine saying that given enough money and time the POR could be developed.

What Space.com seems to leave out is:
- the instability of the Orion requirements. The size of the capsule, the number of crew, landing on land vs water, the rating of the electrical system, whether the vehicle is to be reusable, and changing the human rating requirements to meet vehicle capabilities; all have changed, reducing mission capabilities, increasing costs and extending the program schedule;
- the slow lack of progress; Space.com seems to imply this is a result of lack of dollars. PDR is by-and-large a paper process that typically is done in a year or 18 months prior to fully staffing up; and which should be one of the least expensive segments of the program; Orion has not gotten past PDR yet after 5 years and $10 billion spent;
- the foreseen operational cost of the Orion-Ares missions; a billion dollars a flight just for hardware, once they begin to fly; that assumes a single Orion per mission. For deep space missions Constellation and Lockheed have said they really need two 'kissing' Orion spacecraft to meet volumetric and redundancy requirements. (Many question whether this is adequate.) Presumably that means $2 billion a mission.
- the safety debate; originally Ares was characterized as being the safest launcher possible because it was essentially the same as the Shuttle SRB. The changing requirements and characteristics of the booster now require a total redesign of the booster from what was used on Shuttle, which leads to questioning the applicability of the Shuttle characteristics;
- the incomplete Constellation architecture; the original goal of the Vision was to establish long term human presence on other worlds; lunar and then Mars bases or outposts. Constellation focuses only on Apollo-style lunar sorties. The Orion capsule is not suitable - does not meet human requirements/standards - for planetary class long duration missions. It is too small. It has inadequate redundancy. What would be required are additional 'mission modules'. These do not appear anywhere in the Constellation architecture or funding requirements.

If you look at the unstable requirements, the inability of the Constellation architecture to meet the original intent of the Vision, and the lack of technical progress, then you really have to question how the program could be characterized as well-managed.

[i]Hunter said NASA’s 2007 request — sent to Congress in early 2006 — did not include enough money for NASA to maintain the late 2011 goal for fielding Ares and Orion.

“The internal target for operational capability required more funding than NASA had,” Hunter said[/i]

That is infuriating. Does anyone believe NASA is fiscally (or otherwise) responsible enough to deserve more money?

And to blame Obama for any of this is ridiculous. What could he possibly screw up even if he tried?

He could make Ares V a chocolate doughnut and according to Augustine NASA would still be buying Soyuz more than a decade after Constellation started.

Obama could not be between a harder rock and a harder hard place. Fire people or spend more Chinese money. I say pick your side and stick to it.

"Why did they not take a stand and refuse to play this dead end game they have played for 4 to 5 years?"

Probably realisation that if they wouldn't play the game, they would be replaced with those who would.

That said, it is worth remembering the importance of the personal agendas of certain individuals high up in NASA to the agency's direction during this era. They wanted this particular archetecture for reasons of their own ambition and ego. Funding or no funding, it would happen, even if they had to sacrifice the entire agency to achieve that goal.

Shameful and sad days ahead for this nation if this is truly what Obama wants.. and gets.
There will be a fight about it.

What contrast from the "white paper" promises about NASA.

Remember?

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/policy/Space_Fact_Sheet_FINAL.pdf

HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE TO HIS PROMISES FOLKS!

FIGHT FOR NASA!

We must remind everyone!....

“When I was growing up, NASA united Americans to a common purpose and inspired the world with
accomplishments we are still proud of. Today, NASA is an organization that impacts many facets of
American life. I believe NASA needs an inspirational vision for the 21st Century. My vision will build on the
great goals set forth in recent years, to maintain a robust program of human space exploration and ensure
the fulfillment of NASA’s mission. Together, we can ensure that NASA again reflects all that is best about
our country and continue our nation’s preeminence in space.”
-- Barack Obama

Ben, exactly the point, where is the integrity? Either they were naive, or as you suggest they had personal agendas and ego. In either case the results are the same, they should have taken a stand and said this was not doable with the budget provided instead of prostituting themselves and kicking it down the road. If their concern was being replaced so be it, at the end of the day they fail either way as does the agency and the country. I still get a kick out of Griffin's outrage at his being questioned by the transition team Remember this :"If you are looking under the hood, then you are calling me a liar, because it means you don't trust what I say is under the hood." I guess all was not what it seemed.

Now is this $1 billion in addition to the $3 billion that Obama took from NASA (that I think was savings from ending the shuttle program) or was NASA hoping to only get $1 billion of the $3 billion?

I hate that we are replacing the Shuttle with a capsule and throwing away all the knowledge and hardware from 30 years of experience. I would like to have seen a second generation Shuttle. With the weight savings of using Al-Li primary structure and composite secondary structure, modern electronics and fiber optics, and operational efficiencies learned from 30 years of operations, the Shuttle could weigh as little as 150K lbs instead of 190K lbs. Some of this weight savings could be used for a beefed up and separable crew cabin for crew survivability, and metallic TPS from X-33 would further increase safety. This new Shuttle could put up 70K pounds or more, maybe 55K or more to ISS orbit. A cargo version could put up 130K lbs. This could extend ISS for decades and provide return capability for refurbishment of modules if needed. I'd build a fleet of 6 and fly twice a month using the same amount of people as today. With this capability, we could assemble a true deep space vehicle or stage hardware and people at ISS for trips to the Moon. Even though it's not the most efficient orbit, the capability to stage hardware and fuel would more than compensate.

NASA just doesn't seem to be able to leverage off what it has and conduct true space exploration. Everything has to be a clean-sheet design. The biggest tragedy in all of this will be the loss of the greatest liquid rocket engine ever developed by humans, the SSME. What an awesome piece of machinery. It is a crime to get rid of it. Thanks Griffin. Living proof that you can hold 6 advanced degrees and still be an idiot.

Bloomberg is reporting the Pres. Obama will request/insist on a freeze on discretionary spending (which includes NASA) in his SOTU address. While I've heard that NASA wouldn't be part of that, I've also heard that it will. I'm betting on the latter. The net result is that, IMHO, NASA will not only be out of the human space transportation business, it will also be out of the human space exploration business for the foreseeable future. On the positive side, this would also mean the agency would have no need to spend the R&D developing an HHLV, since it wouldn't have a mission or payloads for exploration (sans a really huge telescope). Whether or not you favor Constellation, an alternative like DIRECT or purely "commercial" (note the quotes) option... it won't matter much. We're all going to get the shaft, again. Get used to watching Dragon go to LEO, circling Earth round-and-round, going to ISS and doing not much else, and certainly not beyond-LEO exploration. In other words, get ready to reminisce about the "good old days of the shuttle." I hope I'm wrong, but I think the next two weeks will see the death blow to the potential for interplanetary human space exploration for at least a generation. I don't care what the "policy" says in words... the money won't be there. There will be cost overruns (again), delays (again) and cancellations (again). Maybe if Jeb Bush runs for President he can be the third President Bush to call the nation to return to the Moon and land on Mars... and likely the third to have his vision trashed and destroyed (mostly by an inept Congress).

So much for Mr. Hope and Change. Face it kids, "Space ain't the Place" for this administration or probably for any future American administration. The Democrats don't have much use for manned exploration and never have unless it helped them politically. You want to send people to the Moon and Mars? Fine. Your best bet is SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace...or the Chinese.

I just want to say ditto to possum, well said.

@spacearium
Both President Bush's increased the size of government. I highly doubt that Jeb Bush could be elected. If the GOP offers up another big spender, my vote will go third party again. This country is in desperate need of a leader. The dithering has to stop.

Possum:
" I would like to have seen a second generation Shuttle..."

I agree.
Although speaking as a layman, I think it's also reasonable to point out that shifting the SSME's off the Orbiter, to a traditional lifter, would give the benefits of:

-Simple, safer Orbiter.
-Less launch vibration to Orbiter.
-More maneuverability and range in Orbit (less mass).
-Less mass on re-entry, fly-back and landing.

If NASA can't accomplish more human spaceflight expansion within its $18 billion total budget, I'm sure there are other institutions, universities or commercial enterprises that can.

Today, NASA isn't structured to spend $18 billion effectively and Congress only makes it worse.

But all this hand-wringing that NASA will just have to give up on human spaceflight with a budget held to $18 billion is nonsense.

If NASA isn't organized to accomplish great things with $18 billion, then it is time reorganize some NASA Centers as Federally Funded Research and Development Centers and close some others. Or move human spaceflight somewhere else.

NASA's standing on the shoulders of giants yet it can't see past the next $1 billion bump?

It has an operational International Space Station in Low Earth Orbit - perfect assembly platform.

It has available highly reliable commercial medium and moderately heavy lift launch vehicles.

It has available a private enterprise flying inflatable habitats.

It has the existing international industrial capacity to crank out station-node sized modules and advanced on-orbit robotics.

It has at least three civil options available for orbital rendezvous and cargo delivery with two more commercial options almost online.

If NASA can't assembly an affordable open architecture for human exploration of cislunar or deep space with these existing elements, then it is time to find another organization that can.

I also wanna add to Possum, if a new Shuttle could optionally fly without a crew, we could go back to using it to loft satellites to boost flight rate without superfluous risk to life.

IIRC, the incremental cost of a Shuttle flight is actually pretty low, around 100 mil, which is fantastic considering its capability. I think that proves well enough the _idea_ of reusability works out fine, even if the current Shuttle's safety issues prevent us from using it as intended.

A second crack with hindsight could hit the nail on the head.

Possum is right and not only about the hardware. We are throwing away the hard learned ops lessons of Shuttle

Will this be the final event that will force the many and separate space support organizations (NSS, MS, PS, etc.) to finally come together and unite to defend human spaceflight-or will we continue to snipe at each other until there is nothing left? The longer the "gap" the more the American people will come to believe that sending people into space aboard an AMERICAN vehicle isn't needed at all. It's time to stand up for what you believe-American space leadership-and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT-or shut yer mouths.

Possum is right. But we are throwing away not only 30 years is Shuttle experience, but 60 years worth of US experience in hypersonic flight.

NASA was a technology development organization. The approach should have been to take our current knowledge of the technology and to advance it.

Shuttle II could have been smaller, simpler, and easier and more cost effective to launch.

To throw away all of our existing capabilities in exchange for a fifty year old non-reusable ocean splashing ballistic concept was just stupid. You have to take a look not only at the Administrator who was in place, but virtually no one in Constellation had ever worked Shuttle, systems development or technology. And of course they failed at even getting their relatively simple concept designed.

Now we will be left with nothing.

Looks like we're back in the weather satellite business, folks.

Frank, with due respect, I believe the battle has already been fought and decided... we are only seeing the smoke now drift over the field. We have had the peak NASA budget, the norm will soon be $4b to $6b less/year.

From my vantage point, the country is financially broken, and the people are now mad. If unemployment continues to rise for another year, the people will get scared on top of mad... that will not resolve itself in an orderly nor in a predictable fashion.

If you think unemployment is bad now, just wait til the cuts to human spaceflight are felt. I know calling a strong space program a jobs program isn't popular with this readership, but if you're on the deck of the Titanic, you should take any life preserver that comes your way....

Just out of curiosity, Frank, what are the organizations to which you belong?

It's one thing to tell us what we need to do, but what all of the organizations need are increased membership numbers. Without a larger pool of members from which to cultivate volunteers and leaders then all of the advice in the world is for naught.

I shill for the National Space Society and the Moon Society. I serve at both the local and national level. My number one focus at both levels is membership and increasing the numbers of people who actively support space endeavors and activities in our nation.

Which brings me around to the original question - which space organizations are you a member of? And as a corollary, which would you encourage people to join?

I wonder how the potential freeze will affect COTSD? Having a government customer used to be a good thing. It seems like the US technology base is being continuously punished by the consequences of it's success. First our infrastructure, then our resources, I hate to think what comes next.

While sad, as an American tax payer I'm reluctant to want to put any more money in the hands of any of NASA's senior manned space flight managers. They played the political game and lost. In the meantime, they have succeeded in creating a NASA where backstabbing for career advancement is commonplace. Heck, backstabbing for fun is commonplace. Part of the reason for the incredibly divisive and extremely unhealthy environment is that NASA has 3 large manned space flight programs that all literally fight for the same pot of money. The gloves have been off since the CAIB report was published. On a positive note, maybe the backstabbing will abate once the Programs begin to be shut down.

"I hate that we are replacing the Shuttle with a capsule and throwing away all the knowledge and hardware from 30 years of experience. I would like to have seen a second generation Shuttle."

The shuttle's great, but a second generation shuttle would only confine us to LEO longer. Do you want to explore the rest of the solar system, or do you want a second generation shuttle? Going beyond LEO with a shuttle isn't reasonable from a fuel standpoint, so that means you're still going to need an Orion-like vehicle. And you're going to need an EDS much larger than even a second generation shuttle could lift, so you'll need a heavy lift vehicle for the EDS and landers for a moon shot. A shuttle just isn't cut out for exploration beyond LEO.

So pick one: explore beyond LEO or a second generation shuttle. With the current budget constraints, you can't have both.

Ken, I belong to NSS, the American Astronautical Society and AIAA.

Just once I would like to be plesantly surprised by these characters. I don't care what shade of lipstick you put on a pig...it's still a pig. This must be what it was like to live in the 3rd century Roman Empire. You keep your eyes fixed on the marble statue of Augustus, so you don't see all the cracks in the plaster walls. How sad.

To start, let me say that possum is right in some respects, a second gen shuttle would be icing on the cake of space flight. Let just keep it to passengers and move cargo to rockets dedicated to cargo.

Lets also stop and go back not just to the beginning of the shuttle program, but back to the late 50's to early 60's. We had more engine development (E-1,F-1,H-1,J-2), more rocket design work (including the start of winged space craft), and more planning for future missions then any other era in history. It was not about just going somewhere, but exploring the boundary's of the unknown, and thinking of ways to achieve the impossible.

For some strange reason, NASA has refused to look into the past to achieve the future. The Saturn 1B and Saturn V were great designs that should be looked at for medium to heavy lift. Some would say that new is better. I would say to them that if the giants of the past could create these master pieces, we should be able to make them better.

Everyone needs to remember that NASA is not just about human space flight, but also aeronautical research, and unmanned space flight (probes to other planets and Earth satellites). We need to remember that without one, the other two are on the cutting block too.

We need a space station as a way point for beyond earth missions. Without it, we are stuck with a Apollo style mission profile, which means plant the flag but no long term duration. We need a moon base, for we need to learn to live in the "dirty" environment of the moon. Once we learn how to operate there, we can operate anywhere. Lastly, we need to stop going to a clean sheet every time someone wants to do things differently. Improve on the past to make the future better.

NASA needs to learn to be frugal about how it spends the taxpayers money, and live within it's means. Cut out the fat, and masses of managers, and become cutting edge again, not over the edge. I think that if Gen. Bolden would turn Ms. Garver loose on NASA, some good changes could come about. With just a little leadership from Pres. Obama, NASA could change for the better. Lets pray for the best possible outcome, yet plan for the worst.

giskard03:

"The shuttle's great, but a second generation shuttle would only confine us to LEO longer."

This strikes me as a narrow view: the point is not to make another Shuttle that does the same things as this one, but to take the existing idea of the Shuttle and extend it to be a more capable vehicle, one that can take us beyond LEO.

The existing Shuttle already has unique capabilities that could be used to start a deep space exploration program:
1) Capability to launch relatively large items (e.g. ISS modules)
2) Capability to launch items without requiring them to control their own orbit post-launch
3) Capability to assemble unpowered modules on orbit
4) Large crew complement
5) Significant downmass capabilities

... #s 1 - 3 mean you could launch a multi-module exploration vehicle that has propulsion designed solely for deep-space missions (e.g. VASIMR), assemble the craft in orbit, transfer a crew to it, then land with a minimal crew (or no crew at all!) while the deep-space mission goes on. #4 lets you handle crew rotations without the need to rendezvous with the ISS or another platform. #5 lets you safely and easily transfer hardware and collected samples back to the ground without having to fish it out of the ocean.

So take those capabilities, and add: more upmass, more safety, uncrewed launch & landing, higher efficiency, smaller ground crew requirements, shorter turnaround time, etc - all things that we can use lessons learned (!) from the last 30 years to accomplish - and you have a vehicle that is still more capable than any other launch vehicle around, and a robust platform for deep space operations (even though the Shuttle wouldn't be the vehicle that takes you past Earth orbit).

The Shuttle isn't designed to be a deep space vehicle; things like wings and rudders are more of a liability in those cases than an asset. But it is designed to launch a lot of stuff, be very capable for EVA operations, manipulate things on orbit, and bring lots of stuff from Earth orbit back down for a soft landing. Those are all capabilities that would be EXTREMELY useful for deep space missions. Requiring your deep space vehicle to also launch from Earth and land in it imposes requirements that aren't useful for deep space missions, and lead to unwieldy compromises. Rather than settle for that, why not separate the launch and space operations? A revised Shuttle would be perfect for the launch part.

If one of the mission objectives is to provide for capability of leaving Earth orbit, we are now talking orbital speeds of 26,000 mph +. For missions to Mars which ensure minimum travel time (crew exposure), the resulting Earth return speeds may be too fast to allow for a lifting body type shape (e.g. shuttle).

For re-entry into Earth's atmosphere, returning at the speeds required for interplanetary travel (Mars), a blunt body shape may be required...i.e a capsule design.

I agree wholeheartedly with the comments about Shuttle II. This has been bothering me for years. Instead of upgrading and evolving the Shuttle system NASA was always looking for the next big leap. All those efforts (NASP, Venture Star) went in the dumper and sucked up money like a sponge. They just decided to forget all the lessons from Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, not to mention the logical progression of platforms and systems in commercial and military aviation. Shuttle-C would also have been a huge asset for lifting and system development without risking the lives of a crew.

We need the Shuttle and in a few years we'll be talking about all the things we could be doing if we only still had it. The ability to lift cargo and crew, deploy spacecraft and modules, service spacecraft and modules and return cargo to Earth is critical to the long term utilization of space.

If Boeing was run by NASA we'd still be flying on 707's and there would be a failed trail of flying wings, blended wing bodies and other game changing ideas that just never panned out for commercial travel.

One last thought: Real commercial transport is exactly what we need. That means competition and a level playing field. Does anyone think that Boeing or Lockheed-Martin can come to the table with a bloated vehicle and compete with SpaceX (assuming SpaceX can deliver)? SpaceX has set the bar. They have developed in house a complete launch system. Engines, structures, avionics, the works. It's an amazing achievement made even more impressive by their budget (even considering COTS money).

I wonder if Elon would be open to something radical like a winged orbiter...

I love the idea of going back to what worked before, but the rules have changed. J-2X is supposed to be just like J-2 only better. The only thing J-2X will have in common with the old engine is the name. The same would be true of all of the Saturn V architecture. NASA has a whole new set of rules for human spaceflight. The analysis takes a long time and a lot of money to do, but it is also in lieu of making dozens of engines and testing them until they break. The same is true for the vehicles themselves. After Challenger, there was a study to resurrect the F-1 for a liquid booster in place of the SRM. It didn't work, couldn't be made to work, would not meet the safety and reliability requirements. Getting from zero to 17,000 miles an hour for LEO is hard. Getting out of the gravity well to go to the Moon or Mars is ridiculously hard. Paper rockets work every time. Real ones take some very smart people working very hard. Come and join the fun on the inside at NASA or one of the contractors. It is one of the most engaging and challenging careers I can recommend.

Joy! Obama is at it again. To all my friends who voted for the man thinking he is going to save NASA and increase its budget, I think you were sold a bill of goods. I guess the only way that NASA could get additional money is for it to ruin the economy by giving out bad loans or making cars that nobody wants. Thanks Mr. President! Thanks for nothing!

That is why you have a space station. You return to earth orbit and then hope aboard a shuttle to return to earth. No more high speed reentries.

"NASA has a whole new set of rules for human spaceflight"

The only reason NASA changed all of the rules is because it likes printing paper instead of bending metal. Everything that we learned has been thrown out of the window. You can analyze all you want, but unless you make it and break it, you don't learn from it.

Returning to earth orbit is not feasible. It would take too much propellant. High speed entry is the way to go.

Here's a quiz for readers with a historical bent: what American president not only proposed a new space mission for NASA in a State of the Union address, but did so twice. HINT: it's not the one you might think...