Bolden Meets The Press

According to Charles Bolden:

1) Constellation program was within its funding profile.

2) Constellation was not over budget.

3) The greatest significant factor in Constellation schedule delay, timeline, was level of funding.

4) The reason for cancellation of Constellation program was purely budgetary.

5) Technical problems with Ares I was not a significant factor or even a factor at all in Constellation cancellation or in delay of program.

Hmmm...

It appears the plot thins. One has to wonder why cancel? If it was "budgetary" then it proves Obama wanted those funds funneled into programs consistent with his vision. The biggest insight here is that if Bolden is correct on Items 1 through 5 and Obama gets his way, then there won't be any budget for alternate launch vehicles and spacecraft either.

The reason it took so long for Obama to make up his mind on this is what I said last year that Augustine didn't give him the cover he wanted and apparently a review of the program by Bolden didn't either. So now all they can say is Bold, Exciting and New all the while expecting those words to be enough of a reason.

To be precise he said the decision was "Purely budgetary for the most part".

He also said that although Constellation was on budget and within the funding profile, that is always the case. To stay within the funding profile they had slipped the schedule, and the "time horizon for realizing where we were going to go had really stretched out there".

Folks, this is what surrender looks like. It is new to many Americans. We are not going to see any American manned space missions for at least a decade.

"We are not going to see any American manned space missions for at least a decade."

Congress will have final say and
Obama is on track to be a one term President.

Preserve Orion and the next President will have options open.

They are launching a broad revamp of the old NASA by simply saying "trust us, it'll be awesome!"?
I more think the rush is to get NASA put in its place before election season spins up in earnest. The public has a short attention span and if they can clear November they are probably good to go for 2012.

Personally I'm hoping there is a "new coke" aspect to the public love for the space program. That just because People are loath to spend money in a recession, doesn't mean they want to see an end to big science.
The problem would be that NASA wasn't hitting home with constellation. Thirty years of wandering with the shuttle program suggests people are perfectly comfortable with their space program wandering for a few more decades.

If they weren't hot and bothered about the moon program before, whats to suggest they want to save it now?

I don't see how anyone buys into this story:

He only has one launch provider to ISS, Soyuz and that worries him.

He had a program that could get him to ISS in 4 years, but they are abandoning that.

Now he needs to get Elon Musk and Orbital to buy into creating jobs in Florida. But he doesn't mention that he also has to get them to build a capability that will even get astronauts to space.

He talks SpaceX and Orbital frequently but the crew capability budget line says that the commercial contracts will be competitively bid. There is no assurance that they will be the ones that will win.

He feels safer with a contractor that he is been working with for decades, but doesn't mention any of the contractors that he has been working with for decades.

Note that he also says that he is optimistic that we can deliver commercial "cargo" to ISS in 2013 but doesn't mention astronauts. The Soyuz contract ends in 2013. How do I get astronauts to ISS after that without the crew capabilities of Orion that could get astronauts there by 2014?

We are going nowhere.

Oh good lord - another round of "OBAMA IS DESTORYING NASA" - Ladies and gentlemen, the teabaggers have come to NASAwatch. Maybe you need to beat your chest a little more. (My personal favorite has to be the "this is what surrender looks like" - $#+!)

Aero Speedwagon hit it on the head - yes, they always got all the money they asked for. Of course, they had assumed they were gonna get more money, and planned on that money (why they thought they'd get it, when they've never gotten it before, boggles my mind).

What Obama is trying to do is put in the first stage of a true space infrastructure. To do that, he needs a functioning space station, a vibrant space taxi industry, a funded R&D program (to figure out what the architecture will look like) and finally people, organizations, and companies that will utilize all 3.

Best interview I've heard yet was on Spaceflight Now - Miles O'Brien interviewed USA's Jeff Carr(??) I think the name was, discussing the need for the Merchant7 and CxP advocates to tone it down with the Shuttle Safety trash talking.

Media/News folks need to get that guy on more and DC PR oughtta recruit him!

Perhaps Obama wanted something that could be promoted (or spun) as "flashier" and a part of his personal legacy. Or ... it could be because Constellation was Bush's baby.

And isn't "purely budgetary for the most part" oxymoronic?

The 'science-only' justification is a red-herring. They already tried that with the Mission to Planet Earth. The public likes pretty pictures from space but, let's not kid ourselves, can pretty much care less about the science papers behind it.

The argument of 'climate-warming' and an artificial 'energy crisis' have been oversold, and the public is starting to realize (as with the health care 'reform') there's an expensive price-tag to all that flag waving and that 'change' isn't always for the good. Something as simple as building more nuclear reactors to reduce the use of fossil fuel demand solves the issue of energy dependency and reduces demand from the OPEC cartel.

As for Human Spaceflight and large boosters, show a CGI of the Tunguska airburst (and reminder about the less known one near Vladivostok in 1947 ... such things are more frequent than naysayers claim), and a sign on the ground saying 'your city here', and we've solved the problem of public interest. What are the odds? Yes, they are small, but we could just add at the bottom of the graphic Dirty Harry's famous phrase of 'How lucky do you feel today?'. There, solved.

Constellation didn't hit home because of all the internal criticism from the science-only crowd confusing 'science from space' with 'space science' and, also, intense lobbying by ULA trying to get NASA to pick up the tab that the DoD is trying to walk away from.

> He had a program that could get him to ISS in 4 years, but they are abandoning that.

This information disagrees with every reputable source. If you disagree with the entire analysis by aerospace corp, the human spaceflight review panel, and NASA itself, you should just come out and say it.

> but doesn't mention any of the contractors that he has been working with for decades.

He mentions Boeing multiple times

> Perhaps Obama wanted something that could be promoted (or spun) as "flashier" and a part of his personal legacy

That doesn't make sense because why would a politician stir up a hornet's nest to score himself points

> Constellation didn't hit home because of all the internal criticism [and] intense lobbying by ULA

I don't know how you come up with this stuff. You should write a novel because nobody has ever read anything like this

"What Obama is trying to do is put in the first stage of a true space infrastructure. To do that, he needs a functioning space station, a vibrant space taxi industry, a funded R&D program (to figure out what the architecture will look like) and finally people, organizations, and companies that will utilize all 3."..Ferris.Valyn

Really? It's too bad you weren't there to help them roll this out considering you know so much about what Obama is really up to. Maybe you could even be the next administrator if Bolden resigns. Some words of advice, just add the terms "Faster, Better and Cheaper" and I think your presentation will be complete.

"the teabaggers have come to NASAwatch"

So you don't approve of those with different views or those you disagree with?

I am not a teabagger but you have to wonder how this administration can get away with just throwing away 9 million dollars already spent and only 9 more to finish not to mention we loose our capabilities to get to the station and relying on the Russians in a time like this. I currently have a job and health insurance but if constellation gets canceled then I won't. I believe that Bolden is doing what he is told and soon the truth will come out. Isn't this a national security issue as well.

It is a shame I wasn't there to help I out. And one day, I indeed hope to be administrator.

BTW, Goldin's mantra was "smaller, faster, cheaper"

More seriously, I'd rather take something like this, then a false promise of going beyond LEO, and never making it, because you are always hoping for more money, but never getting it.

Mike Griffin was never James Webb

When people say "He's destroying human spaceflight" and "This is what surrender looks like", I am sorry, but we aren't in a simple policy disagreement anymore. If people were prepared to engage respectfully, over Constellation & the President's proposed budget, then I'll gladly discuss it.

Thats not what is going on. This is fear-mongering & demonization & the criminalizing of space policy.

I for one intend to call a spade a spade.

Um, if it was only 9 million to get a working Orion & Ares I, then, you know, shouldn't there be a working vehicle almost on the pad, rather than, you know, years away?

Second - we weren't going to have a capability to get to ISS until after we de-orbited ISS, if we were going to use Orion & Ares I. If you are concerned about National security, then Constellation won't provide, and so you have to look elsewhere.

Finally, there is the issue of operational costs, which are huge for Ares I and Orion ( $1 Billion per launch???)

Without more details, its not really space policy, its just confusion.

> Oh good lord - another round of "OBAMA IS DESTORYING NASA" - Ladies and gentlemen, the teabaggers have come to NASAwatch.

Ferris, I know you wanted to get a jab in against the Tea Party, but FYI quite a few of us "teabaggers" are actually in support of NASA's new plans for exploration-focused R&D and commercial cargo/crew contracts. A comment like that would only serve to turn those partial to the Tea Party away from whatever it is you're saying.

So what's your qualifications to become a future NASA administrator - deep thinking space policy formulating and/or political rhetoric-speak?

Agree that CxP was a farce and tea-baggers in general seem more like hysterical nutcase ninnies.

But, the "vibrant space taxi" etc. talking point(s) just don't resonate well with regular folks in middle-class circles. The hsf space centers are located in states where most people own their own cars.

Most of us perceive taxi's to be too expensive and inconvenient - only call a cab if ya can't get family or friends to drop ya off. Daily reliance on taxis is just for the rich folks living in the big cities.

Deep thinkin tends not to be practical in implementation. That's why manufacturing industries employ both design engineers and manufacturing/production engineers - (theory vs. practice for the over-edgeecated)

For "RC" in reply to your statement "This information disagrees with every reputable source." While there are comments identifying "likely" delays in the Augustine Commission Report there is no firm evidence that the Orion program could not meet its planned Orion 1 launch date in 2014. And, unless you can show me another program that does that by 2014, or by 2020 for that matter, in the proposed 2011 budget the US will not be carrying astronauts to the ISS even by 2020. Yes, I do respectfully disagree with the Augustine commision.

For Ferris.Valyn's remarks "If people were prepared to engage respectfully, over Constellation & the President's proposed budget, then I'll gladly discuss it." I'm ready. Please show me one line item in the proposed NASA budget that gets NASA a US crew capability to the ISS by 2015 or by 2020 and justify it with a technical discussion of the capabilities identified in that line item and I will gladly attempt to constructively debate that with you.

A number of years ago I learned that the price of a Falcon 1, if bought by NASA for a NASA launch was nearly twice the cost of a Falcon 1 as purchased by a non NASA customers. Why? Because NASA has requirements that cost Space X a lot of money to implement.

If I am Space X, or Orbital, or any other commercial entity, I would not set one foot on NASA property. I would not use any existing VAB, or OPF, or PAD 39 infrastructure. Integrating NASA assets, along with NASA requirements, into my production flow, my assembly, my test plans and logistics will cost me more money than if I set up shop somewhere else. And this will make my rockets more expense to both NASA and non NASA customers.

Gen Bolden is dreaming a dream that sounds nice; he sounds convincing and passionate about it, and I hope it happens just they way he envisions:

and there are so many forces at play, between commercial and Congress and internationals ,etc. that will make it very difficult if nearly impossible for his long term vision/dream to manifest. Anyone who has taken business classes knows that the failure rate of corporations long term strategic plans is very high. Throw in NASA/Congress/WH dysfunction, and I just don't see Gen Boldens dreams happening.

And the flip side is that the government doesn't manufacture their cars. Or if you prefer, most people fly on airlines, when they are going long distances. They don't have their own airplane. So, to be fair, I probably should call it the spaceliner industry. Or compare them more to Buses and subways.

More to the point, space policy should not be set just to satisfy a jobs needs of a particular state - we don't get that with the auto industry (come see Detroit, that is clear). They need to be set so that it maximizes the return (however we get that return) to ALL of the US - in other words, Hawaii and Massachusetts needs to benefit, along with Florida and Alabama (and they should feel that benefit as equal as possible)

Trying to make the case that "we need these vehicles to keep people employed in another state" doesn't fly if you go outside those narrow areas. Portland Maine is is not prepared to have a collective freakout over the Space coast, in Florida.

And trying to sell inspiration when people in other industries are losing their jobs, going without health care, worrying about their retirements and the world their children will inherit, is practically impossible (and frankly, its a little insulting). What you need to see them is something that is real, measurable, granular, and ideally predictable.

If you can create an industry, in multiple states (many more than we currently have with NASA centers), or one that is a significant portion of the US economy (like the Auto industry), then I have something to talk about in places like North Dakota, or Wisconsin.

How is having a progressive attitude about science and technology comparable to being a tea bagger? When Obama loses both houses November there will be tea baggers in his own party. Apparently, even Hillary can't stand it anymore.

Re: "If you can create an industry, in multiple states (many more than we currently have with NASA centers)"

The Lockheed Martin Orion Project office is based in Houston, Texas, near NASA’s Johnson Space Center. The team includes major subcontractors Aerojet, Alliant Techsystems (ATK), Hamilton Sundstrand, Honeywell, Orbital Sciences Corporation and United Space Alliance; and a network of 60 minor subcontractors and small businesses in 22 states across the country.

That's almost half of the states in the country. How many states and contractors do you think SpaceX will employ?

Damnit - this should be a response to AnObamanaut, not neuronexmachina. Sorry for any confusion.

akear - I don't consider Constellation a progressive attitude. And I am sorry, but I am less than convinced you are a progressive, or liberal on other issues.

You are correct sir...Goldin did use "Smaller, Faster, Cheaper". HOWEVER, most of the ones touting Obama's vision are saying things like "Faster, Better, Cheaper" which it is not. I stand by MY characterization and hope that it is now clear for you.

More seriously, we don't need you as administrator....we already have enough myopia on the part of this administration.

Re: "If you can create an industry, in multiple states (many more than we currently have with NASA centers)"

The Lockheed Martin Orion Project office is based in Houston, Texas, near NASA’s Johnson Space Center. The team includes major subcontractors Aerojet, Alliant Techsystems (ATK), Hamilton Sundstrand, Honeywell, Orbital Sciences Corporation and United Space Alliance; and a network of 60 minor subcontractors and small businesses in 22 states across the country.

I think that qualifies as an industry in multiple states.

It would be more fitting if Bolden were extending the middle finger in the picture above. That is what they are doing to the manned space program.

What a awful time to be a US space fan.

CRAP in SPACE.

Yes, exactly. The Merchant7's profitability will always be top priority - rather than complying with well justified NASA HSF Safety requirements. so that's one fallacy in the cheaper-better-faster Merchant7 plan (cheaper's not as safe or safer than...)

yo Ferris, you're still not gettin it.

The shuttle workforce is not the average "jobs program". they have specialized skills - safety & quality skills that go way way above & beyond a comparable industry job. ya have no idea how many bigillions of things can & do go wrong, both from human error & malfunctions, & get corrected prior to countdown. the Shuttle workforce & work processes are quite literally a one-of-a-kind national treasure.

If only NASA could patent the shuttle flight software processes and sell some software development expertise to - oh, say - like Toyota or GM or ...

2017 for Ares I, 2016 for commercial. What needs to be said? Elon thinks 2013-2014 before Falcon 9 is sending up manned Dragon shots. (Dragonlab, that is, reused Dragon modules that NASA won't use, is in fact slated to start by 2011.)

Bolden mentioned 2013 for cargo shipments to ISS, perfectly feasible if Falcon 9 delivers. I expect Elon to send his own manned flight to ISS before 2015 (hopefully with NASAs blessing).

The whole budgetary comments are telling. When I or a blogger or a pundit says "Cx was over budget" what we mean is that "Cx's budget would not allow them to reach their goals in the timeframe they have allotted." Cx was well beyond the ESAS timeline.

When Bolden says the same thing he has to make that clarification, and of course the bloggers and pundits are spinning it against him.

The Bolden vision is reinvigorating the space program and going to get us out of LEO far quicker than Cx ever thought about.

Nothing excited me more in this briefing than when Bolden kept talking about Mars as a place to go. I counted it and he said it over 4 times. Mars, Mars, Mars, MARS!

Who is saying "Faster Better Cheaper"? All I hear is Faster & Cheaper, which is perfectly in line with the "pick two" concept. Nobody's saying we're hurling Dragons at Mars. Just that we'll have them sooner - the first real Falcon 9 is right about to fly - and they won't cost 500 million dollars each.

Why can't the legislature just commit to funding Constellation?

They decide policy\law and govern the money, don't they?

Can't they jump in here at any time and actually commit the funds? Why haven't they already? Griffin has been saying "We need $$$" for *years*. Was anyone really surprised at the Augustine commission's results?

If the legislature ISN'T going to stump up the money, even after all this, than why cry at Obama? He cannot legally control the budget. There seems to be a very clear, implicit message that NASA won't get the funds it needs. If the senate and congress don't disagree, than I don't see how he's wrong. We might as well stop shooting the messenger.

For those of you who keep asking how fast private enterprise could begin launching NASA crews, here are the bullets from two slides of ULA's presentation to the Augustine Committee. To get full benefit, we would need to give a prompt "go ahead," of course.

Delta IV Heavy Launch of Orion

Delta IV Heavy has launched 2 operational missions with 100% mission success

Human rating Delta IV Heavy is understood
– Addition of an Emergency Detection System (EDS)
– Separate launch pad with crew ingress/egress
– Additional reliability improvements options identified

Greater than 20% performance margin for both ISS and lunar missions
– Trajectories shaped to eliminate black zones
– DoD planned propulsion improvements benefit NASA

Benign launch and abort environments reduce risks for Orion

Affordable and credible costs
– Non-recurring ($800M pad, $500M human rating)
– Recurring ($300M/launch)

Available within 4.5 years from start

EELV Launch of a Commercial Human Spacecraft

Human rating impacts to flight-proven existing EELV are understood
– Addition of an Emergency Detection System (EDS)
– Separate VIF/MLP or pad with crew ingress/egress

Low non-recurring ($400M) and recurring costs ($130M/launch)

Human rated Atlas V offered by numerous Prime Contractors during NASA COTS competitions
– Ongoing integration of entrepreneurial and traditional prime designed commercial crew vehicles

Non-crewed missions provide vehicle characterization and flight data prior to first crewed mission

EELV is not the critical path to launch a commercial crew transfer vehicle
– Launch within 4 years of start

Even if you add a couple of years to the estimates, they still launch before a realistic operational date for Ares I, using rockets with proven track records and at less than one-third the recurring cost per flight. Also, perhaps one-tenth the non-recurring cost. Faster and better and cheaper is possible on occasion.

Fine, you picked two, it still won't give you better and it won't be usable for trips to the moon, forget about Mars. So, a narrowly defined spacecraft (crew and cargo to the ISS only) will eventually wind up costing as much as Orion would have if you decide to modify it for lunar and Mars missions and when you do, you better have your "heavy" version of Falcon ready. You have a long way to go to get to "better" then it won't be cheap anymore.

You need to go and learn what the Fast/Cheap/Good concept is and how it pertains to procurement. Just as a two legged stool will not stand, so it is with procurement. You cannot pick any two without affecting the one left. Dragon/Falcon may be faster and cheaper but it will not be better if you include a "beyond LEO" requirement. You guys are saying that faster and cheaper IS better. I agree IF the debate is confined to LEO but it is not.

ISSvet, don't forget that Dragon 9 Heavy will be even more powerful than Delta IV and since the SpaceX pad in the Cape used to be the old Titan pad, I believe (though don't quote me on that), Falcon 9 Heavy will be able to launch from the Cape without a new pad (they already refurbed it for Falcon 9). Yes, I realize that this is very optimistic stuff and SpaceX is really still a new player, I'm just sayin'!

I don't understand why we need to go with Orion on a man-rated craft though. Orion needed Ares I because it was designed to enter Earth's atmosphere at escape velocity.

Delta IV Heavy has launched 2 operational missions with 100% mission success.

Sorry, you're incorrect. The first (DemoSat launch) was officially listed as a "partial failure". Therefore not 100% successful.

Delta IV Heavy has launched 2 operational missions with 100% mission success.

Sorry, you're incorrect. The first (DemoSat launch) was officially listed as a "partial failure". Therefore not 100% successful.

> Fine, you picked two, it still won't give you better and it won't be usable for trips to the moon, forget about Mars.

Actually, lunar exploration with EELV-class vehicles is quite feasible and straightforward:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ula-claim-gap-reducing-solution-via-eelv-exploration-master-plan/
http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf

I've been holding off commenting to absorb all this and let it sink in. So here's where this space cadette comes out on the plan as we've heard it...so far...

1) Cancellation of Ares I: sad, but the right move

2) Commercial services for access to LEO: good

3) Flexible Path: good, but no time-line (so far), which makes me (very) nervous.

4) Open ended R&D, rather than a program for developing an HLV: makes me (very) nervous.

We'll just have to see what kind of plan emerges in the months ahead. Unfortunately, it's a lot clearer what's been canceled than what we'll do instead. It will be quite a while before we know whether we've entered an endless "study" and R&D phase in terms of getting beyond LEO.

As far as talk of "tea-baggers" versus "progressives" versus Democrats versus Republicans...to me it's irrelevant. I'm a techie - what counts are the programs proposed, that sufficient funding is there, and that they're executed effectively.

When pressed near the end on when an HLV could be flying (and I'm not criticizing Bolden here, he's trying to be optimistic and still honest given what he has to work with), Bolden said:

"...If the workforce, if the engineering part of the workforce can do the miracles that I think they can do, and we're able to find enough new technology in the Constellation program when we do our scrub and determining how we phase the program out, I don't think it's impossible, or beyond reason, to think that we would be started with development and flying, hopefully, of a heavy lift capability in the decade of 2020 to 2030. I would hope we could do that."

So...if...can do miracles...able to find...not impossible...not beyond reason...to think...we would be...started...hopefully...ten to twenty years from now...hope we could do that.

Pretty hard to find the old "can do" spirit here.

Obviously some here don't understand the "myth" of commercial space. joshcryer states "Elon thinks 2013-2014... before manned Dragon shots." Note that in another article there is a quote "Musk said SpaceX could be ready to ferry astronauts into space within three years of landing a human transport contract with NASA." What that means is Elon needs to wait to get large sums of money from NASA before he can perform that mission. That is not "commercial" that is just another government contract.

ISSvet shows us how fast private enterprise could begin launching NASA crews. How do you percieve "private enterprise." Do you think ULA developed Delta IV heavy on their own dime waiting for this opportunity? Ask ULA how many billions of dollars they received from DoD to develop the Delta IV heavy and Atlas V. Also ask them why Lockheed and Boeing combined into ULA. The private industry dollars just weren't there and they needed to leverage each-other to survive.

There are no truly "commercial" companies in spaceflight like Boeing is for air travel. There are just aerospace companies looking for government contracts. "Commercial" is a myth.

Even though there are contractors out there that fairly won NASA contracts for Constellation, if this budget passes, the commercial contracts will be competitively bid and we will then see if Mr. Musk can actually compete with those who know how to get hardware to space. Mr. Musk's record of 2 out of five doesn't necessarily show that he knows what he is doing yet.

In the end, we still won't have US crew access to ISS in 2015 with the proposed budget no matter what you folks believe Mr. Musk is capable of.

Great post and right on.

jcspace, SpaceX doesn't get paid until they succeed.

SpaceX is still a joke by NASA's standard, but the Kodiak facility in Alaska is not. It has a 100% success rate. SpaceX is a pipe dream like the impractical Tesla roadster.

Below is a link to the Kodiak story.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/video/?fr_story=0219ca815fb65dfa933c587e1f980df6983d229b&rf=bm

I am disinterested in the religious debate over the definition of "commercial"; that's why I used "private enterprise." By the purest definition of "commercial", there are no commercial transportation companies in the U.S. - all are supported by the government.

Regardless of how they got there, nonetheless, ULA is a "commercial" company now. They manage to win a few commercial launches despite competing against companies subsidized by countries with a policy of never letting ULA win. I note that ULA's parent companies put their own money into developing the EELVs, they designed to cost with the goal of competing in the global market, and they brought the cost of launch down. Their design and operations philosophy is different from NASA's and that makes all the difference.

joshcryer, you are correct, the Falcon 9 TEL is designed to launch the Falcon 9 Heavy as well and can use the same launch pad.

Mike, if I am not mistaken, Ferris is a college student. I applaud him for paying so much attention to what is going on and being passionate and writing about it, that quality is very admirable. However, until he enters the workforce and pours his heart and soul into manned space flight for 10 or 20 years and 3 or 4 years on one of the Constellation Projects, all of his opinions of what he thinks is or is not wrong with Constellation are completely irrelevant. He has not worked in manned space flight, he has not worked for Constellation, he has not worked for Orion or Ares. Nothing he says about the program or the projects is relevant because all of his opinions (and they ARE opinions) are based on third hand reports at best. He should step off his political soap box long enough to listen to people who have worked their butts off to get here.

Although politics are heavily involved with what is going on, to those of us who work in manned space flight, it is not about politics, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. It is about a fundamental desire to place humans on the moon and other celestial bodies in our lifetime. It is a goal we have worked for our entire lives and the VSE finally set our course on achieving that goal. Even if the architecture was flawed (still debatable in my opinion, but given proper funding all architectures can certainly be improved upon) the Vision was everything we had been missing for years. Augustine did not say Constellation could not work, Augustine said Constellation cannot work with its current budget. It needs more money. Bolden did not say Constellation could not work, he said it was mostly being cut for budgetary reasons. Now we have "bold", "innovative", "game-changing technolgies" in place of any actuals goals or programs.

The people who are crying about teabaggers and politics, are those who are violently defending their president, rather than violently defending human spaceflight.

Hate to tell them, but I was attacking Bush's lack of funding to Constellation for several years before Obama was elected. Obama just took it to the extreme and completely killed Constellation, not parts of it, but the entire program.

Bottom line Ferris: 10s of thousands of contractors working in manned space flight are going to lose their jobs in the next 6 months because Constellation was cancelled. NO amount of wishing or hoping is going to change that. SpaceX is not going to hire 10,000 KSC employees. (SpaceX currently has one posting at KSC). Yes, there would have been lots of job losses with the end of shuttle, but the hope was the new program would alleviate those losses. Now there is no new program. The Ares V contract was never bid. The Altair contract was never awarded. Most importantly for KSC, the EGLS contract was never awarded. There will be no new contracts to fill this void, because there is no goal and no destination and no timeline. It will be years before any company is awarded a contract.

As for low earth orbit - news flash - none of us working Orion ever really wanted to go to ISS or LEO, that was imposed upon us later. We are fine with the so called commercial space sector eventually taking over LEO operations, that was always part of the plan anyway. We all had our sights set on the Moon.

Bolden points out that Constellation was behind schedule because it was underfunded. Augustine said the late 2020s was more realistic for lunar return with increased funding. Bolden gives us (rough paraphrase of his press conference) - i think that maybe I guess it might be possible that maybe if the stars align, then we may be able to possibly consider the possibility of possibly having a heavy lift capabillity by some time in the 2020-2030 decade - maybe.

I just don't see how commercial is going to work. The airline industry flies thousands of passengers every day and flys thousands of planes, yet it only supports Boeing and Airbus.

Manned space-flight is so much more complicated than that, so how is it going to support multiple US companies offering manned launch services?

Sure, in the early days of air travel, there were many companies making airliners, but today it's a mature technology, and it only supports two major players because of the cost and complexity to develop and build the next 787 or 380.

Spaceflight is mature too. We had it figured out when we built the Apollo capsule and Russia built the Soyuz. We just need NASA building a rocket that can launch Orion and have a affordable growth path to more ambitious missions. We need J130 and J241. We can afford them with the current budget, we can minimize the gap in both manned flight and in lost jobs of critical skills that we need to retain, and we can have a foundation to grow on for the next fifty years.

We don't need innovation, we just need to decide to build something that can haul enough stuff uphill to do something with and then do it instead of making paper rockets. We don't need to radically cut costs either. If we could afford the shuttle, we can afford a SDHLV, with change to spare.

Spaceboy, I meet your criteria for time in manned space flight and I can also do simple math. NASA's budget is going up, not down. That means there are going to be more jobs somewhere, not fewer. Maybe the new jobs aren't where you are. That happens. It happened to me twice in my career and I'm doing fine.

I know that it can be traumatic to be forced to make big changes, but that is no reason to kill US human space flight for a generation, which is what Constellation was on track to do. There is no excuse for wasting taxpayer money on an overpriced guaranteed failure. Can you tell me what Ares I would be doing without a space station to support during the many years while Ares V is being developed? (Even if Congress was foolish enough to fund both Constellation and ISS extension, Ares I is too expensive to fly there against commercial competition.) And what would both Ares I and Ares V be doing during the additional years while Altair was being developed? I'll tell you - getting canceled after many more wasted billions.

Brother, wake up and smell the toast burning. You should be thanking Obama for getting you out of this agency-killing mess so early and with a budget increase as well. NASA people in general should also spend less time whining and more time figuring out how to provide good value for the taxpayers' money.

Spaceboy..
Unfortunately space flight is all political. Washington doesn't do visions.

neuroexmachina Thank you for the ULA PDF. Interesting architecture. But "eggs in one basket" springs to mind!

HOWEVER, most of the ones touting Obama's vision are saying things like "Faster, Better, Cheaper" which it is not.
Mike Hilton in reply to comment from Ferris.Valyn February 7, 2010 4:10 PM

Sorry but that is a mis-characterisation! if anything FlexPath is Slower, Surer and Sustainabler(?) The diversion of Cx and its rush to the Moon by 2020 was contrary to the VSE. IMHO Augustine et al were being polite about the PoR. Here in the UK we would be having a Public enquiry into mismanagement of Government funds! With the same result: Whitewash.

The one thing the new plan is guaranteed to be is faster, since anything is faster than never.

Say what you will about Mike Griffin's ESAS architecture. The dynamics of NASA NOT getting the $ it needed to pull of the VSE had nothing to do with Mr Griffins architectural choices.

Way back when , when the VSE was rolled out, there was a promise of a plus up to the NASA budget over a 5 year period.

Trust Congress and the WH and OMB and NASA Management culture to repeat history, no matter the content of what is being proposed.

> Augustine did not say Constellation could not work, Augustine said Constellation cannot work with its current budget. It needs more money.

But since it can't get more money it needs to be replaced. You'd probably agree but you and people like you are trying to rationalize emotion. Just come out and say it. Having my work and my career threatened SUCKS. But the free market succeeds at everything else in my life including my computer and my satellite TV and my food from brazil and my clothes from china. And it will succeed at crew transport too.

> I just don't see how commercial is going to work. The airline industry flies thousands of passengers every day and flys thousands of planes, yet it only supports Boeing and Airbus.

It supports two additional companies with over 50,000 employees between them, so if you were wrong about that just imagine what else you're wrong about.

> the ones touting Obama's vision are saying things like "Faster, Better, Cheaper" which it is not.

In economics 101 terms you're saying less government intervention in the free market will NOT produce "Faster, Better, Cheaper" products than if there was more intervention. Suffice it to say you're wrong

I absolutely agree with you. We need to start full funding of a J130 and J241 program immediately. And, of course, continue funding the development of the Orion and EDS vehicle.

The biggest flaw in the private commercial manned launch scenario is the fact that there are simply not enough manned flights to the ISS from the US to sustain more than one company. Capitalism is about competition. Using the ISS as the sole means of revenue for manned space flight company would only create a one company monopoly.

Depending on NASA contracts to the ISS is clearly not the right direction for the emerging commercial manned space flight companies!

Marcel F. Williams

FlexPath has NEVER been a part of "my vision" for anything NASA should do. I have no idea where you got that idea.

I've been working for NASA for almost 28 years. I worked Shuttle, Station, OSP, and Constellation. In the 3 years I worked Constellation, it was painfully obvious that the entire program was never going to succeed. The people managing the program and its major projects did not know anything about design. They were almost all Shuttle ops people who hadn't a clue about design and development. Until NASA addresses the issue of incompetent senior management at the HSF Centers, we will never go anywhere regardless of the amount of money we get. You should see these same idiots trying to react to this new direction. They don't have a clue. No one in NASA seems to be able to think outside the box and take advantage of this new budget. NASA should not be in the business of space operations. We should be an R&D organization doing cutting-edge technology to advance the state-of-the-art. Until we do just that, which is what this new policy attempts to start, the human race will never explore the solar system because all our money will be sucked up by another white elephant operations program.

And by the way, Constellation was never going to hire the 7,000 contractors getting laid off by Shuttle. That program was broke and fixing to ask for a doubling of its budget or slip ORD 3 years.

@ISSvet

"Spaceboy, I meet your criteria for time in manned space flight and I can also do simple math. NASA's budget is going up, not down. That means there are going to be more jobs somewhere, not fewer. Maybe the new jobs aren't where you are. That happens. It happened to me twice in my career and I'm doing fine."

OK, I will post the last few 5 year budget requests for the third time. The budget is not going up for exploration. Even saying the overall NASA budget is going up in 2011 is a lie. The budget goes up by $300 million, but that includes an additional $600 million for shuttle that was not in the budget before. This will not create jobs, it will extend some for a few months. If shuttle flies out before the end of September (only 4 left), than the $600 million is never appropriated. So, regardless of that, if you ignore the $600 million for SSP flyout, the budget is actually decreasing by $300 million. Furthermore, $600 million has been diverted to Aeronautics, $500 million to commercial enterprises and $1.9 billion has been set aside for Constellation closeout and other funding has been diverted to earth climate studies etc. The extension of ISS is not a surprise to anyone. Also, it does not create any jobs. It extends jobs beyond 2015. Of course 2016 and beyond is not part of this budget, so we cant really be sure of that either, can we?

Below is the 5 year budget proposal for Exploration in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011:

_____|___2009__|__2010__|___2011__|___2012__|___2013__|___2014__|___2015__
2008_|_4,312.8_|_4,757.8_|_8,725.2_|_9,076.8
2009_|_ 3,500.5_|_3,737.7_|_7,048.2_|_7,116.8__|_7,666.8
2010_|_________|_3,963.1_|_6,076.6_|_6,028.5__|_5,966.5_|_6195.3
2011_|_________|________|_4,263.4_|_4,577.4__|_4,718.9_|_4,923.3_|_5,179.3

Compare the 2011 and 2012 budget requests over those 4 years. Tell me how there has not been a steady drastic reduction in Exploration funding? And again, I do not place blame at the current administration, I place original blame with the last administration and congress, but the current administration and congress has not improved the situation, they have continued it and made it worse. The table clearly shows however, that the reduction started under Bush. Remember, the original plan was Constellation gets all of Shuttle budget in 2011 and beyond, so that Ares V and Altair contracts could be awarded. THese budget reductions prevent that.

As for the jobs, its not as easy as you make it sound. This is not even close to the same as cancelled projects like OSP, X-38, X-33 and X-34. Slight reductions in force do not compare either. First of all, none of those projects had staffs anywhere near the size of shuttle or Constellation, let alone, the combined staffs of Shuttle and COnstellation. The only thing you can reasonably compare this to is the end of Apollo in terms of the amount of jobs that are lost. So, while I agree it sucks that you had to relocate twice and while agree you survived, the climate today is different.

Under the new program, not only are an estimated 10-14,000 jobs going away at KSC, but an estimated 3,000-5,000 jobs are going away at JSC, 2,000 at MSFC, 1,000 at MAF. Not even taking into account Utah, Mississippi, COlorado and all the other states that support Shuttle and Constellation. So, with these kinds of mass layoffs in the manned space flight business, where do you expect all of these people are going to get jobs? I'll tell you where it wont be, KSC, JSC, MSFC. A few will be able to transfer and move, but not hundreds and certainly not thousands, which means thousands will have to leave the industry and go work in a variety of other fields. I feel pretty confident that I can find a job, hopefully without leaving my company, I do not feel confident at all that I can find a job in manned space flight and certainly not in Houston.

So, if I have to, I will move. That wont kill me. What sucks is I will not be working for the human spaceflight program anymore. I also feel that so much of the workforce at JSC and KSC is so specialized that it will be difficult for the majority to find work at GRC or GSFC or JPL for example. Also, remember, before any jobs can be created, no matter how much money you throw at a new project, you have to have RFPs and contract awards. It will be a minimum of 2 years before any major, job producing contract is awarded under this new program. That is once they decide what the new program is. Bolden has said over and over today and Saturday, he doesnt know what the new program is yet.

Additionally, the housing market is worse than it has been in years. What do you think will happen when 3000 houses go on the market in the Clear Lake area? The real estate values will plummet and people will lose thier shirts and possibly their houses.

So ISSvet, unless you were around between Apollo and Shuttle, I do not think you can compare any previous reduction in force or project cancellation to the cancellation of two PROGRAMS simultaneoulsy. If you were around during Apollo, than my hat is off to you, because that would have been awesome. Of course, I think if you were around during Apollo, your name would be Apollovet and not ISSvet.

Finally, sorry that my posts have been so long. I am just trying to make people understand why most of us at JSC and KSC and MSFC are so upset with what happened last Monday. Especially when after countless Bolden press conferences, they still have not answered the most basic questions: "Where are the jobs going to come from?", "What is going to happen to the contractors?" (we were told flat out that civil servants were safe and I am happy for them because they are my co-workers and friends, but that does not lessen my fears and concerns) and most importantly "What is the new vision that you want us to get behind?" If you want our support, we need to know what we are supporting. I dont want people to bring up commercial crews to LEO, because that is not what most of us are worried about and most of us are fine with an eventual commercial LEO domain. We mean, what is our DESTINATION. We were all planning Moon and than Mars. First we heard nothing, than we heard Mars is the ultimate destination and now we are hearing Mars, but that we probably need to go to the Moon first to learn how to live and build etc. So, if that is going to be the new vision, than I am at least happy with the new vision, since it is exactly the same as the old vision. However, there has been to many nebulous terms thrown out there and I am not convinved that is the plan yet.

"And by the way, Constellation was never going to hire the 7,000 contractors getting laid off by Shuttle. That program was broke and fixing to ask for a doubling of its budget or slip ORD 3 years."

You are right, the 7,000 number was based on people transitioning to Constellation. Without a transition they always said that number would be much higher. That is why there was so much pressure to extend shuttle beyond 2011. The plan was that many of the shuttle people were supposed to transition to EGLS (not awarded) and they were hoping that they could get some of the Ares V or Altair work to hellp further reduce the number below 7000. As for doubling the budget? That is EXACTLY what the budget called for in 2011 and beyond after the shuttle was retired, but that budget got squeezed more and more every year. Everybody always knew that budget was needed to get Ares V and Altair moving and help with transitioning shuttle people to COnstellation.

BTW, although I agree there are problems with Constellation, I do not agree that it was hopeless or that Constellation could never succeed. Everybody said the same thing about ISS, and we pretty much launched the last piece today. Besides, as Bolden said again today, our whole current direction is based on the hope that one or two of the commercial ventures will be successful.

One of the saddest parts of this whole mess is the human toll -- Spaceboy makes that very clear; the wasted years, efforts, hopes and dreams; the anxiety of an uncertain future. Sadder still is that the Constellation debacle was completely predictable; in-fact more than predictable, almost inevitable; like NASP, X-33/X-34/X-38, OSP & SLI that preceded it.

Einstein's definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. So by this standard, NASA HSF has been insane for some time now.

Constellation was dead the day it was rolled out -- it was just a matter of when it fell over. There was never the budget, and never going to be the budget, for supporting the insatiable appetite of its management and technical approach, including dealing with all the technical challenges that were certain to surface with such a new, and unwise, vehicle design as the Ares-1.

We knew it. I knew it. And so I stayed as far away from Constellation as I could, and advised friends and colleagues to do the same -- I'd been down this road enough times, and didn't care to go down it again. They maybe thought I was a bit crazy at the time, but no more.

Why, What, How. That is the essential order for a sustainable exploration program. A "Why" of "President Bush told us to", or a "How" of "Apollo on Steroids" fails, as should be apparent to everyone at this point.

The cold war is over. We won the race against the Soviet Union to the moon. Space exploration is no longer a national security imperative, like it was during Apollo. National security, not exploration fascination, is what gave the necessary political grease to fund Apollo -- that's the absolute truth. We can't continue to pretend that its 1970. Its the 21st Century for goodness sake!

What we need now, as a country, is industries for the 21st Century. Ways of creating millions of good paying jobs, with decent health insurance and retirement. Ways of motivating our kids and grand-kids to take Science, Technology Engineering and Math. I've always believed that Space provided very fertile ground to do just this -- we don't have the luxury of screwing it up again.

>It supports two additional companies with over 50,000 employees between them, so if you were wrong about that just imagine what else you're wrong about.

Snide remarks aside, who are these companies that can take on something on the scale of the 787 or A380, that have the knowledge and the financial resources for something so ambitious? After regional gets, there are only two top tier manufacturers of jetliners. Only one left in the US. And should we get into the direct and de facto government subsidization of Boeing and Aribus?

Sorry, but I just don't think some little startup is going to surprise them all, especially when any wise businessman knows they can get Uncle Sugar to pay for it all if they just play their hand right.

We didn't get to this point because of lack of knowledge in rocket design. We got here because of poor leadership, poor choices, politics, and money. I don't see that commercial is going to be a magic fix for that.