Paradigm Shift Ahead for Human Space Flight

And one of them may even look as Orion/Ares. But seriously, it will be interesting to see what sprouts from the seeds being sown at this time.

A quick look at the 8 comments on the WSJ site reveals 5 very negative, "knee-jerk" anti-commercial comments and 3 tries at reasoning, which probably will do no good.

The key to making the shift from government to private launchers and spacecraft is to create a rational and verifiable boundary between the two. In other words, when and why (with what rationale) should each transport segment be transferred to the private sector. If everyone can see that it is not being done on an arbitary, capricious and/or political manner, there will be a lot more support and less opposition to the changes. Right now the obvious candidates are cargo, passengers and propellants to LEO. At some point, commerical transport to points further away from Earth would be practical.

A new policy for initiating large space projects also needs to be formulated in response to the current changes (assuming they are real). Instead of attempting to cost a program based on existing launchers and vehicles, it might be more rational to set a cost limit for each program (not for the entire program, but for how much it would cost per year).

The program would then not be initiated until the projected costs (currently mostly launch costs), have been reduced to a "resonable and sustainable level". This would give an incentive to NASA to support all efforts to "get the costs down" first before starting another gigantic program, no matter how enticing it might be to them and to us.

It does not take the existing HSF workforce, spread out between KSC, MSFC, Stennis, and JSC to 'outsource' human space flight.

Look for lots of folks to leave the agency.

"White House Decides to Outsource NASA Work"? Doesn't NASA already "outsource" all of its unmanned launches (just like the DOD and NRO)? It's only manned launches which are still operated in-house.

I think that this has been a long time coming...NASA is such a huge bureaucracy, it can't get out of it's own way! There are too many people with too many ideas...we need a simple way to get 6-10 people up into orbit...it needs to be bare basics like the Russians have in their Soyuz,only bigger, just get us up there with no frills... Then we can build all the cool things up in orbit, or send them unmanned on a workhorse heavy lift rocket that NASA can build! I am NOT a big fan of the current administration, but this is a good plan it's really a no brainer...

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem relying on the private sector to get to the ISS or other LEO destinations. What I fear is that without tasking NASA to do that, there will be little to no reason for a new heavy lift vehicle (Ares, Direct, Side Mount, whatever). Without that, we can kiss our childhood dreams of seeing a man on Mars goodbye.

While commercial launches will probably be a lot cheaper than shuttle launches, only NASA can do the expensive research that would be equated with a monetary black hole if done in the private sector. So without having NASA spend more money on human space flight than the minimum required to get crew to station (Soyuz, Dragon, etc.), we won't get out of LEO again (Moon, asteroids, Mars).

I really fear that Challenger/Columbia may have started this avalanche. It's hard to say (and I don't even know what I'm talking about :-P ) how things would be if those accidents hadn't occurred. I do think it's fair to say that STS would be cheaper and not condemned as dangerous. The shuttle program would have probably lasted a little longer. And its replacement launch vehicle would be a technological step forward, not the chronological step backward to Apollo-esque vehicles we're seeing. We're effectively being told that the shuttle program was a mistake and a waste of 35 years. Now we're back to where we were in the '60s but without any lofty goals.

On the other hand, cheaper access to ISS increases the chance of its ditch date being pushed past 2015.

Looks like the White House didn't do their commercial spacecraft history homework. Once commercial has you over a barrel and you have no alternative, look for prices to skyrocket. Boeing and Lockheed did it to the Air Force during development of the EELV."Oh sorry you just flew out the last Titan IVB and were waiting on us to have a heavy lift capability, but we can't finish out new rockets unless you give us a few billion more:/" Longer gap, higher cost. Short sided thinking with longer term results. That's change you can believe in.

While it's good to go the commercial route for manned spaceflight, the time to do it was while the shuttle was flying. To go forward with this new plan now, we would be putting all of our eggs in one basket. Does this mean that this new format will be put out for bid? How long will that take?

To stop the current program and restart it sounds like a big delay and a long time that the US would have no manned spaceflight capability. And with that, you would have massive layoffs and a tremendous loss in expertise. Just remember, Congress has a big voice in this.

Wow, if the WSJ article is right, they're picking an option that combines the worst features of all the possible choices. They're going to go commercial because they've been told that it's going to be cheaper in the long run-- but they're not going to allocate any significant funding to the new route; they're just going to assume that sometime in the future the funding will show up. So they won't do the current approach, and they won't fund the new approach. And they don't have congressional buy-in for any approach.

Sounds like business as usual in Washington, only more so.

"Astropat" wrote: "There are too many people with too many ideas." You said it.

Precourt made one very important, true statement: "Unless the overall budget goes up, he said, whatever new direction NASA pursues 'isn't going to be viable.'"

Without adequate funding, NOTHING NASA won't be able to do anything it is tasked to do, at least not adequately, and that includes funding commercial companies' development of transport systems. The money just won't be there to do it. As a result, we'll continue to be stuck in LEO for at least another generation.

Matt's comments echo my feeling regarding a new HLLV. Once commercial ISS resupply is in place, it's going to be too easy for our "wise leaders" in Congress and the White House to take the easy out. They'll say that ISS' viability has been preserved tbrough at least 2020 (I suspect ISS will be around until > 2025). With ISS, and the partners, satisfied, there won't be the political or public will to spend parge amounts of money developing the systems that are required if humanity is ever to have a hope of leaving LEO within the next 30 years. ESAS/Constellation was brilliant/doomed in that it coupled everything together - developing an exploration vehicle (Ares I/Orion) "coincidentally" also would result in an ISS resupply vehicle and "naturally" lead to development of a super-HLLV that could take us to interplanetary space.

Without the ISS resupply mission, there's no need for Ares I. And Orion is no longer essential for ISS missions. Keeping in mind that Orion's real purpose is as an EXPLORATION vehicle, not ISS resupply, taking away the ISS missions (in hte minds of politicians) make ORion's development less critical. Yers, it is supposed to still be critical for exploration missions, but they don't care about that. They're only thinking in the short-term in regards to ISS, not exploration. Without Ares I and Orion (or at least an exploration-capable Orion) there's no need for an HLLV. Whether it be Ares V, DIRECT, sidemount, etc. is irrelevent. Such a vehicle is no longer necessary. What mission would it have? Exploration? How would that be possible when there's no more exploration vehicle for it to carry?

Killing off Ares I has the net effect of killing all hopes of human exploration of space beyond low-Earth orbit for decades. That's a basic reality that some of us recognize. Other people don't because they're focused on commercial resupply of ISS as their "holy grail" of spaceflight. Well, that's all well and good. We'll have a few companies taking test tubes to the space station at the price of giving up any chance of doing real exploration.

International Space Station is not exploration. Never has been, never will be. I find it interesting that some newfound fans of ISS are the very same people who criticized it in the past as being a money funnel preventing NASA from doing the exact thing the VSE directs - exploration. Some of the same people who harped on about ISS being a failure and called on NASA to get back to exploration are now telling NASA that ISS is the most important thing since sliced bread and exploration can wait. Hypocrisy.

Killing Ares I is the lynch-pin to killing off all exploration. The lynch-pin to killing Ares I is to take away its ISS mission. Take that away and people think Ares I is no longer necessary because they forget the original purpose of the vehicle - to launch a crew exploration vehicle to LEO so that it can meet up with an Earth Departure Stage and explore the Solar System. THAT was supposed to be the purpose of Ares I, not ISS resupply. Seem people forgot that.

Regardless of the intended use of Orion, but especially if it is intended as an exploration vehicle intended for use far from earth where critical functions must have adequate back-up, the current Orion is inadequate; it does not meet bona fide human rating requirements.

Really, though, none of the arguments in favor of Orion or Ares 1 hold much water. NASA's 'brightest' (I use the term facetiously because I know there are people who could have done the job) have been hard at work for six years now; the current management group for five of those years. As the WSJ article points out, they got the funding they'd been asking for; a lot of it was squandered on things that won't be needed for decades.

They are dreaming about the moon and spending a lot of dollars on that direction, but they cannot get past their first assignment.

We've heard the Constellation management vociferously tell us they were going to show us, and one day they would be vindicated, and they knew what they were doing.

After all that there is little real progress they can show.

If you believed Gehman, seven years ago 'they' decided we needed a replacement crew launch vehicle. Management decided they would build for exploration, which is why they called it a CEV.

Six years later we've not seen it. The PRELIMINARY design is still in work. The design does not meet most of the original requirements for payload capacity, crew size, costs, but most of all, five years ago this same bunch of managers said they could deliver a vehicle in 6-7 years, as the WSJ article points out. Even having spent the funding they asked for and received,today they are still seven to nine years from having a usable vehicle.

Commercial may or may not be best, but we have to seek some alternatives if the existing NASA program/managers cannot deliver.

If Obama really wants to help the emerging manned space launch industry, then NASA should help private industry to develop a simple and safe rocket booster and space craft that can be used by NASA, the US military, and by private commercial launch companies.

But the ISS is a huge waste of tax payer dollars, IMO. So why would I want to use my tax payer money to pay an unnecessary-- middle man-- to transport NASA astronauts to that boondoggle? That's like asking tax payers to turn over all military transport operations to Blackwater. Didn't we just see that in Avatar:-)

If private manned space launch companies want some guaranteed revenue, then maybe the US government should set up a 'Space Lotto' system where hundreds of millions of average Joes and Janes can purchase a $1 ticket for a chance to fly into space aboard a US private commercial space craft. Since a majority of Americans say they would jump at the chance to travel into space, such a system could possible generate hundreds of millions or possibly billions of dollars annually. Since the cost of space tourism is about $25 million per person and we assume 4 passengers per flight, then a billion dollar a year Space Lotto system could support 10 manned launches per year-- that's twice as many flights as the Space Shuttle had last year.

Marcel F. Williams

"then NASA should help private industry to develop a simple and safe rocket booster and space craft that can be used by NASA, the US military, and by private commercial launch companies."

Launcher advances in simplicity and affordability will be sorted out by the market, not bureaucratic central designs.

If it takes NASA billions to get through Preliminary Design Review of their own Ares 1 rocket, than maybe they're not well suited to play the role of a common core booster designer for industry.

NASA can support private enterprise via Space Act while the NASA/FAA can focus on defining and certifying the safety part of human spaceflight.

Marcel F. Williams,

How many time do we have to tell you that NASA is the middle man and not commercial companies? NASA pays commercial companies to help it operate the shuttle. Commercial spaceflight eliminates the only middle man that exists, NASA.

It is not "That's like asking tax payers to turn over all military transport operations to Blackwater." Because in essence, what you are asking is to turn over all airline operations to DOT.

NASA does not develop rockets for private industry to operate. Each individual private company develops and operates its own rocket.

Unlike airliners, rocket are only operated by their developers. Shuttle and Sealaunch are not exceptions, Boeing (Rockwell) and KB Yuzhnoe/Yuzhmash are still involved.

That's like asking tax payers to turn over all military transport operations to Blackwater. Didn't we just see that in Avatar:-)

We do that quite frequently already. Private shuttling to and from ISS makes complete sense. It is a well-established voyage that the private sector could off-load from NASA's workload. The problem, as I can discern from these discussions, is that cutting off Ares funding will halt progress in developing near-future manned missions outside LEO. This is very unfortunate.

The money saved by contracting routine transportation should be invested in this next step - not moved to some other venture as people seem to believe will happen. It seems to me there was much controversy concerning Ares' ability to service ex-LEO missions anyhow. Hopefully someone brighter than myself can develop a next-gen Shuttle-type reusable craft that can leave LEO. This, from my layman's perspective, would seem to be the ideal situation.

If I was a commercial company or an investor, what is the incentive to invest my money to create a human rated launch vehicle? If NASA has too much bureaucracy, inefficiencies, and overhead to create a human rated launch system, which seems to me to be kind of cut and dry (or at least been done before), why would I believe they are capable of doing something more ambitious in the sort term to support the market segment. (I'm guessing NASA management and Congress do not have the PASSION for putting people in space. Or maybe even making anything.) And, if the ISS comes down in 2020, a need is unlikely to exist to have people in space in the next 10 to 20 years. So maybe it's best to wait this out and be prepared to catch the next wave.

There are some interesting and valid comments here. However, they all seem to ignore the fact that there IS valuable science being conducted on ISS. It may be expensive science but one has to start somewhere. So I do not think the ISS is "useless" or a "boondoggle". I'm sure our international partners spending mega bucks to perform a large portion of this science do not hold that opinion either.

The problem therein lies with late stow access on the uphill ride and early access de-stow on the downhill ride. These times are

Hey, if private companies want to go to the ISS, then they shouldn't have to use NASA's $2 billion to do it!

Again, there's no logical reason for tax payers to higher some middle man to take astronauts to a boondoggle like the ISS. This is just corporate welfare! And we don't need private companies lobbying Congress to keep this wasteful $2 billion a year ISS mission to nowhere going.

NASA should be using that $2 billion a for lunar base operations or to develop heavy lift vehicle launched space stations-- in proper orbits. There's no logical reason for a huge centralized microgravity space station in the wrong orbit!

The real money for private man space launch companies is in launching space tourist, not being dependent on government contracts!

Marcel F. Williams

Well, our international partners, who combined, are wealthier than we are, have only spent a fraction of the amount of money the US has on the ISS. I see no evidence that the ISS is a better space station than than a simple and much cheaper Skylab space station.

We need multiple Skylab-like space stations in the future that can be easily launched into orbit or to a Lagrange point by a heavy lift vehicle for governments and private industry. And these are also the types of simple structures that are likely to house humans on interplanetary journeys in the future-- not the ISS.

Marcel F. Williams

"Hey, if private companies want to go to the ISS, then they shouldn't have to use NASA's $2 billion to do it!

Again, there's no logical reason for tax payers to higher some middle man to take astronauts to a boondoggle like the ISS."

Wrong, NASA needs away to get to the ISS (ISS is not going away). NASA needs a shuttle replacement. That is what the $2 billion is for. It is cheaper for private companies to provide NASA a way to get its astronauts to ISS than for NASA to build one.

Marcel F. Williams don't bother responding because you will be wrong. You don't understand the issues.

Sorry, we don't need the ISS. We need a moon base! And keeping the ISS going severely hurts our ability to do that!

I hate the Ares I/Ares V architecture that Griffin gave us but he was exactly right about decommissioning the ISS-- boondoggle!

Marcel F. Williams

And a moon base is not "boondoggle"? We don't need a moon base. We have the ISS and now we must use it.