A Less Than Perfect Rollout

Quite a few of us would be able to stomach this 'new vision' better if Bolden had emphasized the new destinations that we are going to explore rather than simply we are going commercial and Constellation is being cancelled.

People care/but don't care how we get there as long as there is a plan to get there.

Without even a hint of where we are planning to go (other than the solar system), the impression is that there is zilch to the exploration plan.

Bolden seems to forget that when I was in High School, John Young and Bob Crippen told us that our generation was going to step onto Mars.

Some of our greatest dreams were based upon that simple convenant,

"Was it screwed up? Yes it was," he said, confessing that he had ignored advice from aides that might have made for a smoother presentation. "I didn't listen to people," he added."...Charles Bolden

First of all, everyone makes mistakes but I wonder if all the Griffin haters that were always saying that Iron Mike didn't listen to anybody are going to be intellectually honest and level similar critisms (although he admitted to a mistake) at Bolden. I really doubt it but we'll see.

You never get a second chance to make a first impression.

Let's face it though, there was little he could do to polish this you know what.

Bolden said he will press that firm and other commercial companies to "pick up the pace" of job creation on the Space Coast.

"I will demand it because that's the promise that they have made," Bolden said.

Isn't the whole point of going commercial to take advantage of the lack of political shenanigans that so embroil NASA, and to allow these companies to do what they see is best for their bottom line? And to be able to run the company the way they want and to hire whomever they feel will be an addition to the culture they create for their own company? Can the government really force them to hire who NASA wants them to hire?

First of all, there's not going to be any manned exploration beyond the Moon and the Lagrange points unless the problem of radiation shielding is solved.

Second, you can't have a manned space program designed for beyond LEO missions without a space craft and the Obama plan cancels the space craft (the Orion) specifically designed for beyond LEO missions. Plus Obama severely under funds the development of a heavy lift vehicle.

Third, the only real purpose for a manned space program is to enhance the human ability to permanently live off the Earth. Robots are a lot cheaper than humans if all you want to do is merely explore. I guarantee you that the Chinese will not be venturing out into space merely to explore!

Marcel F. Williams

Although Charlie would have done better to emphasize the salient features of Flexible Path, he has a tough job to sell anything in this environment. There have been some good papers recently the outline the rationale for Flexible Path for both Science and Human Exploration. NASA leadership should use these as a basis for promoting this vision to the public and spaceflight community.

Oh come on, try working in private industry where we are asked for more daily, for less pay. Gov workers need to grow up and figure out why the billions wasted on Constellation did not end in success! That is my money who ungrateful idiots wasted, MINE!

Unmanned space leads to more science for less cost, shoot down the ISS!

Oh come on ! NASA employees need to be thankful to be employed, and grow up and figure out why the billions wasted on Constellation did not lead to success. Those were my billions you flushed, can I get them back, from you NASA employees who failed?

I understand that at the KSC all hands Charlie said something to the effect that 'each Shuttle mission is like playing Russian Roulette'. Is that really good to say in front of a group of people (mostly contractors) responsible for the final few missions when morale is at rock bottom? He certainly doesn't have a future as a motivational speaker.

Administrator Bolden never impressed me as an astronaut and nor as a person. My gut tells me he knew that when he interviewed for the job with Obama, that Obama was going to cancel constellation. He did not fight for Constellation, he did not fight for NASA. The way he handled the cancellation notice is typical of your Washington two-timing bueracrat.

J

Editor's note: if you are going to take an anonymous swipe at someone in a way that I doubt you'd ever have the courage to do to their face, the least you can do is use a spell checker.

Of course he knew, the number two he was forced to accept as a condition of the job made no bones about the game plan. And it had nothing to do with Obama. The landscape right now is littered with useful idiots who made this all possible.

Bolden can save his reputation now by simply resigning and restoring some sanity to this mess.

esmithatty wrote: "Quite a few of us would be able to stomach this 'new vision' better if Bolden had emphasized the new destinations that we are going to explore rather than simply we are going commercial and Constellation is being cancelled."

That is the media take on it... Bolden has discussed potential destinations including Moon and Mars during all-hands meetings. However, he has emphasized that a detailed program with milestones needs to be developed, and will be in the next few months. Listening to him talk, my guess is that his dream is to develop exploration architectures (e.g., in-space refueling) and propulsion technologies that will make destinations beyond the Moon (including Mars) feasible. Think Augustine Commission "flexible path" and I'd bet that's not too far off.

Below are the budget highlights copied directly from the budget estimate. You can decide for yourself what is being emphasized...

 Top line increase of $6.0 billion over 5-years (FY 2011-15) compared to the FY 2010 Budget, for a total of $100 billion over five years.

 Significant and sustained investments in:
◦ Transformative technology development and flagship technology demonstrations to pursue new approaches to space exploration;
◦ Robotic precursor missions to multiple destinations in the solar system;
◦ Research and development on heavy-lift and propulsion technologies;
◦ U.S. commercial spaceflight capabilities;
◦ Future launch capabilities, including work on modernizing Kennedy Space Center after the retirement of the Shuttle;
◦ Extension and increased utilization of the International Space Station;
◦ Cross-cutting technology development aimed at improving NASA, other government, and commercial space capabilities;
◦ Accelerating the next wave of Climate change research and observations spacecraft;
◦ NextGen and green aviation; and
◦ Education, including focus on STEM.

 Cancellation of the Constellation program; and $600 million in FY 2011 to ensure the safe retirement of the Space Shuttle upon completion of the current manifest.

Sorry, but the mess was left by Griffin. Bolden is restoring sanity. Constellation was a go nowhere plan. It just had everyone drugged to think they were going somewhere

Newpapyrus

If you can get a majority of people to spend money on extending society beyond earth, I'll gladly cheer.

But I don't see how you do that, if people don't think they can make money at it

I don't like the overall direction that the Bolden/Oboma team want to take us. However, I will admit that their are a few gold nuggets in their logic, but those few gold nuggets are surrounded by another type of nugget and it ain't gold. But in all fairness to Bolden, he is a former military officer and their is a way you do business in the military. If you do not agree with the decisions of your superiors you do not voice it publicly. Instead you meet with your superiors in a private environment and voice your difference of opinion their. I have suspicions that Bolden is not completely happy with this direction, but may feel that budgetary constraints have his hands tied up to the point where this program is the best we can hope for. Personally I have a different opinion, but I am not going to place all of the blame for this cancellation on Bolden.
I think Constellation was to far along to cancel at this point, but can not deny that the ARIES I was a huge mistake from the day it was conceived. I can point out language in undergraduate propulsion text books that clearly state, solids should never be used as the core first stage for large scale boosters due to structural and acoustic reasons, yet the powers at be decided to build the thing that text books clearly state not to build. It was also very suspect that the individual who led the committee to build ARIES-I, conveniently took a high level position at ATK after the contract had been awarded. ARIES-I was a bullet in the chamber that led us to this position, and we must be more cognoscente of this type of political interference in the future and fight it as soon as we see it.

Aereo I will point out the number three bullet, It emphasizes flagship class missions. However, what it does not state is that their is no plutonium-238 left in our stockpile to support unmanned mission beyond the moon where solar energy is insufficient to power a spacecraft. Unless NASA starts to produce more plutonium, then that bullet is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, because it can not be accomplished no matter what tech development we do. I might also mention that at best it will take nearly a decade to retrofit reactors at Oak Ridge or the Idaho National Laboratories to produce plutonium-238, so we are most likely going nowhere for a while. So while we say we are going to put money into flagship class missions instead of going to the moon, in reality we will be doing nothing.

Aereo I will point out the number three bullet, It emphasizes flagship class missions. However, what it does not state is that their is no plutonium-238 left in our stockpile to support unmanned mission beyond the moon where solar energy is insufficient to power a spacecraft. Unless NASA starts to produce more plutonium, then that bullet is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, because it can not be accomplished no matter what tech development we do. I might also mention that at best it will take nearly a decade to retrofit reactors at Oak Ridge or the Idaho National Laboratories to produce plutonium-238, so we are most likely going nowhere for a while. So while we say we are going to put money into flagship class missions instead of going to the moon, in reality we will be doing nothing.

"I understand that at the KSC all hands Charlie said something to the effect that 'each Shuttle mission is like playing Russian Roulette'. Is that really good to say in front of a group of people #mostly contractors# responsible for the final few missions when morale is at rock bottom? He certainly doesn't have a future as a motivational speaker."

ROFL & a RUH ROH!! Geesh, that does seem like a pretty idiotic thing to say to the KSC Shuttle workforce, huh?

Even worse, Bolden was Nelson's personal choice, above all other potential nominees, & Garver's just waiting in the wings there isn't she?

But, in spite of the "aw shucks, I goofed" stance - what if the underlying intent was to deliberately push some hot buttons to see what the KSC Shuttle workforce reaction would be and/or to facilitate energizing into some cohesive course of action?

Apparently the astronaut core is engaged in some group think. They disagree about CxP vs. commercial, but they've all seem to agree that Shuttle is bad, a crapshoot like Charlie said (& would start a bar fight in the nearby Shuttles wateringhole).

Some reporter out there might ask Bolden to clarify & complete the sentence:
-Shuttle is a crapshoot because.......?
-Exactly when did he/they come to that conclusion - after Challenger or after Columbia?
-Didn't OKeefe say that an astronaut told him that foam debris couldn't damage the Orbiter.

So have the astronauts groupthinked their way into believing that foam debris makes Shuttle a crap shoot and is a design flaw - rather than accepting responsibility that a bad decision was made by appproving a waiver, and ignoring the anomalies, prior to go for landing?

Perhaps Bolden & Nelson could learn from the late Lawton Chiles and spend a week, or 2 or 3, job shadowing some techs in the OPF, some QC inspectors at the Pad, some system engineers, etc. and walk some miles and miles in their shoes for awhile to develop some appreciation for the complexity and quality/safety assurance.

Some might refer to Shuttle launches as a crapshoot.
Others might call Shuttle launches a miracle.

Try some appreciation of the workforce skills, conscientiousness, dedication, and workflow process genius that it takes for highly complex launch and landing success -that neither CxP nor commercial will ever achieve, imho.

First off, I applaud General Bolden for admitting his mistake in this whole mess. A rare quality I greatly admire. The roll out of this new vision was definitly handled poorly at best.

What would have instilled some confidence is a defined plan and a defined mission for the new program. He also should have also involved the center directors in this definition process along with the major stakeholders in Constellation (LM, ATK, etc) and the new commercial partners.

Here is just my thoughts on what they could have done, or at least discussed:

1) Develop a plan to turn over all the work on the Ares/Orion system to the contractors and provide the funds and a streamlined process by which to license all the periphery technologies required to operate them from NASA (ex: The heat shield, models, simulators, etc). Also, guarantee them a spot in the “commercial” partners that were announced. This provides a commercial future for the current system, whether scaled down or kept “as is”, and doesn’t waste the work and testing that has been performed.

2) At least for KSC, require that the new commercial sector partners must use existing KSC facilities and ground processing work force. As part of the modernization money, modify LC-39 to be a “clean pad” concept much like Constellation was already doing. A set of interface documents should be generated and provided to the commercial partners so that they can integrate that into their designs. The thought here is to bring the integration into the VAB, with each commercial rocket having its own mobile launcher. This also doesn’t waste the ML that is currently built for Ares/Orion if the contractors so choose to press forward with the system commercially. If the crawler could carry the Ares V, it can carry the smaller commercial rockets, and there is more than enough room in the VAB to handle them. However, a reconfigurable access platform concept would have to be built into the VAB to support this (more of the modernization money). Another good example here would be a unified crew escape system (like the roller coaster idea on Constellation) across all the ML’s that interfaces into the pad facilities. Fuel farms for Kerosene and other commodities not currently at LC-39 would have to be built, and then installed into the universal ML mating adaptor. Hook up and use what you want.

3) Like what happened with Ares I-X (and it worked well), the commercial man rated rockets will be turned over to a common integration contractor inside the VAB and continue through the pad flow and launch (This could be a change order to the current EGLS contract for constellation, or it could be rebid). They will integrate it into the common interfaces of the launch facilities along with performing final stacking and assembly. The commercial company handles drawing control, running the testing, and final systems check out, along with being a partner in the LCC. This would also force a common documentation system between the commercial companies, which saves an incredible amount of money, and as a result provides proper configuration control across all the ventures which is required for manned rating. Basically the commercial venture delivers the product to NASA at the VAB, and then stays in the process, but with NASA in control so that they can certify the rocket for flight in order to carry their astronauts (maintains safety with a common integration process and launch criteria).

4) A common set of criteria should be codified for what constitutes “man rated”, and should be controlled by NASA, and specifically the Astronaut office. This should include system redundancy requirements, launch/pad abort requirements, maximum shock loads to crew during launch/landing, along with whatever other criteria makes sense. This creates a common playing field for all the folks who want to enter the human rated market, and provides the appropriate safety oversight without telling them how to meet that criteria, hence preserving the ability to innovate.

5) Require utilization of existing NASA space centers in their appropriate roles. Common location for propulsion testing at WSMR. Avionics testing at MSFC. Integration and launch at KSC. Extend this idea to the other centers, and NASA provides the rent free agreements to these companies to utilize that space along with seed money to build or modify the facilities they would need there. This would save costs in the long run program wide. The KSC example here, sign the SSPF over to SpaceX, an OPF (with modifications) over to Blue Origin, the O&C to Lockheed, etc. This concept can be applied to, for example, test stands at WSMR or lab space at MSFC. One of the great benefits of this idea, is getting a lot of the same expertise in one spot so that ideas can be shared while keeping costs low by using common facilities.

Anyway, you all get the idea. A lot of these things could have been hashed out at a high level before the budget rolled out. All these facilities could do the R&D that is mandated under the new vision as well, along with the unmanned cargo missions. All this may preserve some of the job losses as well since a new streamlined, standardized, yet universally adaptable, system would have to be developed and implemented outside of what the commercial sector would provide. By no means is what I have mentioned a perfect solution, because I am not an expert in the entire scope of NASA, just the areas I have been a part of.

As one last item, they should have kept the name “Constellation”, and the goals of the moon and mars, but expand that to other destinations as well, and include ISS. The symbolism of the name still fits, and psychologically it would have gone over better. Instead of setting time frames, they should have set technical goals. An idea here would be “to get to the Moon in one day” or “To get to Mars in 10 days”. It could even be expanded to “provide 500MT refueling capacity for long range missions” or “deliver 100MT to orbit”.

Of course, my dream for an end result would be a huge, permanently crewed (20+ astronauts), space based ship. It would 6-12 month trips to different places (Moon, mars, la grange points, etc), but to get to it you need a capsule or glider to get the crew there, along with refueling depots, and great leaps in both chemical and nuclear engine design. This frees up so many of the design constraints by separating the launch and entry system from the travel system.

All that said, this would take decades of constant political and financial support, which I don’t see happening. The problem with all this is, that none of what I mentioned above was defined, and still isn’t. No one seems to have any answers, and absolutely no vision. Far to much rhetoric with no outline to retain the expertise of the current work force to avoid wasted time “rebooting”, and no plans to attract the new talent required. There is no model for profitability from anything mentioned in the new vision, so I just don’t get how a commercial company could stay in the NASA sector long enough and stay solvent without subsidies from the government to reach the long term goals where they could, for example, mine an asteroid. R&D at any level is an investment with no guarantee of a profitable outcome, which makes a poor business model. This is why I still back the program of record. If a solid, viable, plan does come out like the one I have outlined, and comes out quickly (30 days or less, at least an outline), then I think a lot more folks would get behind this new vision.

I’d love to know what everyones thoughts on something like this is, especially Keith’s.

Anyway, sorry for all the rambling, this was all just off the top of my head.

Bolden, speaking to the Merchant 7: "Don't build more infrastructure. Come here to the Space Coast and at least see what we have to offer, then work with us to find ways we can modify to your needs so you can use what's here," he said.

It would seem from Bolden's statement that there is $ available for NASA to 'pump up KSC' to make it more attractive to the Merchant 7 to use NASA KSC , vs some other place for launching their rockets.

If I am a senator from New Mexico, or Virginia or Iowa, or wherever all these 'spaceports' are popping up, I'm not so sure I like the advantage the Federal Government (via NASA) is going to potentially provide the Merchant 7 if they "come to the Space Coast.

I can see states competing with each other to make a sweet offer for the M7 to use their state's spaceport...but states competing against the fed?

Is this what might happen here? Or am I reading into Boldens' statement?

◦ Extension and increased utilization of the International Space Station.

That's a definite in the 2011 budget..... is there plan besides buying seats to even get back to just LEO?

Manned space flight is almost like the difference between interplanetary flight and interstellar flight.

Man rating a booster and an orbital vehicle , just to LEO involves a lot details and certification.
Unless you are willing to put a lot of lives in jeopardy.
We as a nation are no longer configured for such a situation.

So even if supplied by private industry ... how does that get done?

Webbia,

I am familiar enough with CxP to know that this statement is just not true.

"It was also very suspect that the individual who led the committee to build ARIES-I, conveniently took a high level position at ATK after the contract had been awarded."

@rocketnerd

The VAB consists of 4 big highbays. Each of those can be leased out to commercial vendors. I would sell them the existing Mobile launchers if they want them or they can build their own. NASA would own the facility and a contract would operate the facility including the cranes, crawler, Pads, and crew escape.

Like you said NASA would own and operate Pad A & B. We can either put in a RP1 tank or just use tanker trucks to fill those rockets. NASA could define the interface from the ground to the ML's. Then let the rocket owner design their own interfaces, umbilicals, crew access between the ML and the vehicle.

This would be a benefit to commercial operators because they can share many of the costs they would all need regardless of the differences in their design.

Did anyone watch the press conference Q&A this morning with Charles Bolden? He came right out and said the decision to cancel Constellation and Ares I was purely budgetary and not due to technical issues. That the level of funding NASA received forced the program to slide to the right. More importantly, Constellation was well within its budget profile. So?! Constellation was not overbudget! Really! Michael Griffin and Jeff Hanley were right all along concerning? That Constellation program could have succeeded if it had been given the funding promised and we would only be looking at a 2 year gap in US manned spaceflight. Something for people to think about.

Anyone that seriously suggests that commercial contractors use NASAs existing infrastructure has never had any real experience at KSC. Then there's the Unions.

Commercial contractors need to make money. They need to make their own decisions on safety and reliability. They need to operate efficiently.

Nothing, absolutely nothing at KSC would be considered efficient by a private concern.

If this concept is to have even the remotest chance of success the physical NASA interfaces need to be damn near non-existent. The moment a private contractor lets a NASA Ops person get involved in any operation it's all over. Those guys live for mission creep.

Study what happened when NASA turned shuttle operations over to USA. And that was NASAs own hardware.

And lets suppose a Commercial venture did lease the VAB, one the 'bay's, as you say. And then a few years down the road, the facility needs some extensive maintenance, say, after a hurricane.

Who pays for that? Should not a purely commercial outfit pay for that? Not the government? I mean what business does the Federal Government have interfering with the internal operation of a commercial company? (oh, wait, I forgot, we do own GM, Chryler, etc. now...and the banks too)

If NASA does pay for this, does that not create an unlevel playing field with state spaceports , such as those popping up everywhere?