Bolden Talks About The Constellation Team

Yeah, emotion always works with the bank and the bill collectors.

"But what I tell them is - Look, we're going to get through this. Stick with us - if you can. Some of you will decide that this just isn't exciting enough for you - and you want to go do other things."

He makes this seem as if we have a choice. When 10s of thousands of jobs are lost, we will be forced to leave the industry, some will be forced to relocate too. Those loses will all be to the contractors, not the civil servants. The 7000 job losses that people talk about at KSC, were given the mitigation of Constellation jobs. Now there are no Constellation jobs, so that number goes up, quite a bit, since you are also adding lost Constellation, Orion and Ares jobs to the mix. The same is true in Houston. Additionally, since the civil servant work force will not be reduced, that means they will be taking jobs away from contractors, meaning more contractor job losses.

How people can celebrate this is beyond me. I am all for commercial companies entering the space race. I do not think that should happen at the expense of NASA. I think commercial crew transport will eventually succeed, but not as fast as the fanboys think. Anybody who believes any of these commercial companies will be ready to fly HUMANs in less then 7 years (or 4 as some claim) is unrealistic or doesnt actually work in manned space flight. It has been 6 years (SIX!) since Scaled Composites won the X-prize. That was for a two minute sub-orbital flight. They have not sent anything into space since than. I also see no dates on the horizon for the inaugural launch of Spaceship 2. So if it takes a company as talented as Scaled Compostites 6 years and counting to get their suborbital vehicle flying, what makes you think anybody else can do it in less time. At least they did it twice. The other companies have not even launched the first flight of their supposed crew launch vehicles yet. They are in for a rude awakening when they actually have to start building to NASA safety and human rating standards and when they have to actually create a life support system. Not to mention no one in the private sector has done re-entry or landing.

Now there are the aerospace giants, Boeing and Lockheed. Lockheed could do it with the Orion vehicle and an Atlas V probably faster than anybody out there, but Orion has been in development for 3+ years. They have a head start and years of experience launching the Atlas. They might be able to run with this. They could also do it jointly with Boeing in their ULA partnership.

I just dont understand why everything was cancelled and was replaced with absolutely NOTHING! Fine say you dont like the program of record, even cancel parts of it if you feel you really must, but to cancel everything wholesale shows a wanton disregard for the hard work of severl thousand individuals over the last several years. Let commercial have low earth orbit, but come up with a real plan for returning the USA to a destination beyond LEO. (Preferably the Moon and then beyond). Dont take away everything, insult us and give us nothing in return. Lori Garver's answers to questions during the press conference were a insulting to the work force and completely avoided the question being asked. Choosing to throw out words like Bold and Ambitious with no real substance and no solutions. How can you have a manned spaceflight program with no architecture, no destination, no schedule and no funding? Answer: You cant.

Well, I can tell you the people at JSC today were beyond subdued, it was worse than a funeral. I expect the mood was much the same at KSC and MSFC.

Good thing we waited a year and for the Augustine Commision for... Nothing.

I am also disturbed and disappointed by Charlie Bolden. How can he pretend to put a positive spin on this when so many jobs and so much experience will be lost. Then he couldnt even bother to stick around for the questions. Just because you say BOLD and AMITIOUS and Forward thinking 80000 times during a press conference, it doesnt change the fact that you took something, however flawed and replace it with smoke and mirrors. Clearly Charlie did not fight for us, especially when we heard today that Charlie was as shocked as the rest of us. Really? Shouldnt the NASA Administrator know what is going on? The Deputy Administrator certainly knew what was going on.

p.s. - no, this is not exciting enough for us, this isnt even flexible path - this is abdication, this is pushing everything off on a future administration FAR down the road.

@spaceboy:

My applause, that is the best way anyone could have expressed how a lot of us (who actually work in the industry, and whose jobs are on the chopping block) feel.

"I am here because I am passionate about space and exploration." Charles Bolden, NASA Administrator.

When I read that comment all I could think was that it is nothing but pure Bravo Sierra. Then I re-read it and can at least give him his due. He may be passionate about space and exploration but not both of them simultaneously.

Spaceboy RIGHT ON!!!!!

This won't stand in full. I know it won't.

Unless Obama pulls out a working warp drive to explain why he is turning his back on NASA, much of this is going down in congress!

We all know how the DC two step works of course.

He isn't the Obama of even six months ago, he is going to have problems with this for sure. There is little wisdom in trying to eliminate something that five congressses signed off on and billions already spent with hardware in existance.

And yes Bolden is a huge disappointment.
But we know that Garver stands ready to take his place in a heartbeat, she is there to keep him in line no doubt.

What a pile of rubbish. Bolden has become an Obama stooge. The reset button has been set back to 1959!
One day Bolden will wake up in a cold sweat and say, "what have I done". By that time it will be too late.

Madness...madness.........

Spaceboy explains his feelings well. He's certainly got me stuck at the keyboard unsure of how to reply. Suffice it to say that nobody is celebrating any of the bad things you're experiencing.

I understand passions are running high right now for those whose livelihoods depend on the Constellation program, but as a citizen whose sole concern is our nation's space faring ability, I can't tell you how happy I am that Obama and Bolden are taking NASA and the aerospace industry in this new bold direction.

Constellation was a flawed program. I know it's hard for those of you who work on it, but it's true. For those of us who lived through the manned spaceflight drought of the late seventies, I can' tell you how I dread the looming gap in our nation's ability to put men in orbit. Seven years between the last flight of the Shuttle and the first manned Ares I mission -- and the program of record was sure to do nothing to whittle that time down. You may disagree with their assessment, but four companies have laid their chips down and announced that they can put men on the ISS within three years. They're not all raw startups either; Boeing is one of them. And we're not just talking spam in a can like Orion: Sierra Nevada and Blue Origin offer solutions that the Shuttle-sated public have come to expect from our 21st century space vehicles.

With at least four companies competing, we have a very good chance of avoiding the Shuttle trap when a launch failure occurs. The Shuttle and Constellation had severe single point failure problems: one incident, and manned space flight is grounded for years while the engineers sort out the issues. With a choice of launch companies, one accident doesn't halt our access to space, but rather we turn to the other vendors while the afflicted one solves their problems and undergoes recertification.

Then there's cost: at $1B/flight of Ares I, we were looking at a minimum of $160M/astronaut for access to the ISS. The private guys can do it for $20M, undercutting even the Russians. That can translate to lower overall costs or more people in orbit; either way, it's a winning situation for American Spaceflight.

With the new Bolden plan, we get a commitment to begin to implement the orbital infrastructure like fuel depots and the like that frankly should have been done forty years ago. Once in place, we can launch payloads dry with more affordable vehicles, fill 'em up, and off we go. Hopefully, we'll see persistent infrastructure like repair ships kept permanently in orbit. Next Hubble refurbishing we'll simply send up a few astronauts with gyros and batteries on the next commercial flight, transfer them to the repair ship, fill it up, and get fixin'. Less upmass, less risk, and the same infrastructure can be used to repair comm and weather satellites.

Heavy lift vehicles aren't being ignored either. Problem is that the Bolden team looked at all the ones easiest to build (sidemount shuttle, Jupiter Direct, Ares V) and found them all lacking for use in the long run. After all, if you were to clean sheet design a heavy launcher, are any of them the ones you would come up with? Our next generation of heavy lifters will likely see decades of use; it's important we do it right. With a bit of luck we can entice private industry to build them so that we have a choice and can avoid single point failure. Ares V wasn't going to be operational until 2028 at the earliest, so we have some time to do it correctly.

Bolden talks about other very exciting visions. This notion of a planetary ship that could reach Mars in weeks is exactly the kind of thinking that's been missing from NASA for decades. It's a real game changer, opening up not only the Moon and Mars but the entire inner solar system. Just the thing we need to become a true space faring species.

I'm excited about the prospects for the Bolden plan; it's by far the most exciting set of proposals to come out of NASA since the mid-sixties. I'm sorry for those whose professional lives have been tossed in the air, but Constellation deserved to die so that a much better set of solutions could become reality. I'm grateful that Obama and Bolden have the courage to follow this course.

"Bolden talks about other very exciting visions. This notion of a planetary ship that could reach Mars in weeks is exactly the kind of thinking that's been missing from NASA for decades. It's a real game changer, opening up not only the Moon and Mars but the entire inner solar system. Just the thing we need to become a true space faring species."

I am a dreamer too. But to think that is going to happen in our lifetimes is beyond logic.

We use what we know works or none of us are going to live to see new footprints anywhere.

@cessnadriver

With that attitude, you're absolutely correct. However, if you're willing to take a chance and investigate exciting new technologies that can be built today such as fission fragment engines, such ships are feasible. With a exhaust velocity at 3-5% the speed of light and 90% efficiency, ISP of one million sec. are possible. Much greater than ion or vasmir, and with much greater durations then chemical rockets, this is the kind of technology appropriate for a manned planetary ship.

Mars in weeks, the Moon in a day, the outer planets open up to year long trips, and even the Oort cloud is suddenly within our reach. Yes, this is possible. With today's technology.

Before Bolden, NASA would do nothing more than write a paper or two about propulsion such as this and then drop it. Now, we'll have the resources to develop these kind of planetary engines. Now, if I worked at NASA and was given the choice to work on yet another chemical launcher or a revolutionary planetary ship, I know what my choice would be.

Saw the whole thing today and Keith did great with his question for Bolden. Did everyone notice that Bolden gave Keith the same attention and courtesy as any of the other big-name credentialed journalists in the room (unlike his predecessor)?

Got a few notes for Bolden, Ride, and the rest of the astronaut gang regarding the commercial safety aspect of the newest cheaper-better-faster plan:

-imho, most of the shuttle workforce believe that Bolden, Ride etc. are genuinely sincere when they state that safety is of utmost concern and they're going to have sufficient oversight of the commercial companies and such.

Problem is that most in-the-trenches have a perception that astronauts in general are clueless about the level of thoroughness, attention to detail, accuracy, and the process checks and balances that occur on the floor, in the shops, in the control centers, and in many other behind the scenes elsewheres. Astronauts just don't have an understanding or full appreciation of how complex and tedious and precise the work is to achieve that level of (near) perfection.

So, in addition to the words of reassurance about safety issues, to gain real credibility in house - need to demonstrate and convey an understanding of what's required to achieve the same, or better, level of safety beyond just the design factors.

-Read some reader comments, in Florida Today I think it was, that really summed up the Commercialization concerns from the in-house hsf/shuttle folks. One was something like "I've worked in commercial electronics manufacturing before and I wouldn't want anybody's life to depend on it" and the other one was "you can't possibly imagine how complicated it is unless you've actually worked on it". Meaning that the quality and safety levels of the average commercial manufacturing company aren't anywhere close to current hsf and the current commercial braggadocios don't really know what they're in for yet and their learning curve is bound to be painful and uneccessary (much like CxP). So, need to back up words of intention with some expression of understanding the safety/quality minutia-accuracy-details practices.

-Garver repeats the "we've entrusted commercial with sats, etc. as a basis for commercial hsf - yet the OCO was tanked not too long ago.......need some better rationale for the insiders - politicians who don't pay enough attention to that stuff might buy that logic - but not the rest of us.

-Lastly, what's the plan for how long or how much to let the commercials run their course before the path is adjusted? 4/5 yrs like CxP or maybe 2 yrs and do a compare (vs. Apollo or vs. Shuttle)? Many think the commercialization plan will become another money pit like CxP, so what's the plan for stop-n-check?

Happy Google Citizen --

So Constellation was a flawed program? What a novel thought! I'm sure no one here ever contemplated that concept before. Thank you for sharing.

Let me share back: What hurts so much about Obama's decision is not that he killed one rocket program, it's that he killed the whole rationale behind building that program or any equivalent program, whether NASA-engineered or "commercial."

"Moon? We don't need no steenkin' moon!" This is not the path that leads to becoming a space faring species. Your Mileage, I gather, Varies.

As for the wonderful cost savings in flying astronauts to the space station, the Russians are currently quoting a price to NASA on 51 million bucks per seat on a Soyuz. Note very carefully that the "space tourists" who got to the station in the last few years did so sitting in the very same model of Russian spacecraft -- bold venturesome courageous US entrepreneurs had nothing to do with it.

And as for the "next" Hubble refurbishing, the last Hubble visit was in May of 2009; no others are scheduled. After 2014 the James Webb Space Telescope is to replace Hubble; as far as I know JWST is not designed for astronaut intervention of any sort.

I realize you're happy and all, but maybe you should be doing homework?

The more I look into this the more I am convinced that the cancellation of the Constellation program has been at work for some time, and they took all the right steps to do it in less than a year.

1. Create a commission to evaluate human space exploration, which concluded that the current architecture was not executable (not because of technical flaws that they had to otherwise expose and defend, but because it needed more money - something everyone knew). Curiously enough, the commission favored using commercial enterprise to access space, but could not name tangible benefits (in terms of cost or schedule). In other words, the Agustine Commission favored an option without having to justify it or criticize the current architecture, so it easily flew under the radar as not saying anything controversial.

2. Choose a new NASA administrator that was to kept behind the shadows until Constellation was canceled. I never seen a previous administrator been ask to defend a current program of record, but it happen with Constellation. Now Bolden can agree with NASA about this "new" path since he never really represented the Constellation program.

3. Cancel the program after a buffet of federal spending in which much of the public wants to tighten the belt.

Yes, perhaps there were needed changes in the Constellation program, but abandoning human space exploration is an extreme step. I am in favor of developing new technologies, but lets not forget the reason why Constellation was using heritage technology (what NASA management now refers to as "old"), it was not because it was the preferred way to most aerospace engineers but because it was proven, faster, and much cheaper than developing from scratch. Soon, much of our experience obtained during the development of Apollo and the Space Shuttle will be lost, and with it our much expensive investment thought the last five decades. NASA could had fought for more money (heck, we spent 3 billion on "cash for clunkers" and 15 on a rail last week!), but NASA is not fighting this because it got what its management, and at least a few commercial companies, wanted. Welcome to the era of no American space vehicles, and what is worst, no vision and direction for human space exploration ... in return, we get studies, promises, and programs without accountability.

Spaceboy,

Spot on. A lot of people don't realize that this effectively leaves the agency with no strategic direction. The Vision was such a direction; one could argue that NASA wasn't implementing it well, but that does not negate the fact that they were working towards something.

Now, they are working towards nothing. The "new paradigm" is a license for paper studies, committee reports, and viewgraph engineering as far as the eye can see.

But that suits some people just fine.

The greatest irony here is that The Administration is doing precisely what the VSE was supposed to do. Commercialize space flight. I say, give it a shot, it's been beat to death for 20 years on the internet (even before it was called that). Can't hurt to try.

However, I do have misgivings about Heavy Lift, and I hope we don't lose it for too long. I personally believe it can be ramped up significantly if you cut back ISS a bit and some of the precursor missions (along with New Tech; if it doesn't go toward Heavy Lift of course).

This getting to Mars in weeks stuff, yes, it's possible, and we have the technological foundation to do it. But NASA hasn't been directed to act that way because it's been funding a cycle of old technology for so long.

VSE was a good idea. ESAS was that good idea run into the ground, stomped on, and laughed at.

I am often accused of analyzing things too much, of seeing Boogie Men in the dark if you will, but one thing that I have not seen mentioned, in either a positive or a negative sense, are the bounds to be placed on President Obama's quest to commercialize launch services to LEO and the ISS.

Will this opportunity be opened up to foreign companies or will it, in an effort to insure that America develops the assets it needs to stay competitive in the Space Business, be set aside for American companies?

Could President Obama's commercialization initiative see us competing with some sort of derivative of the JAXA H2/HTV or Arianespace/ATV vehicles which, while not currently man-rated or even intended for human transport, have in fact already successfully flown unmanned missions to the ISS and have the proven infrastructure for autonomous operations.

Truly Spam in a can.

And then there are the Chinese waiting out in the wings with their Shenzhou spacecraft. Would anyone like to try and convince me that there is a well marked boundary between a governmental project and a commercial enterprise in China?

I thought not.

Of course, we could just continue to rely on Ruscosmos / Energia for transport to LEO.

And if we do see foreign competition, will we have the “intestinal fortitude” to insist that “man rated” means just that and not just some watered-down standard imposed by a foreign government?

It's a global market for launch services, it's no longer just a two player game. And the part that scares me is that America has a proven track record for allowing industry and technology to move overseas. The auto and consumer electronics industries are just two examples where foreign competitors have earned (yes earned) a growing monopoly while we have sat back and enjoyed the fruits of their labors.

And to make matters worse, it appears that our current administration has the goal of further increasing the concept of one world economy. A global economy is a good thing, but America needs to find her niche as a producer, and not just as a consumer of goods and services.

America, along with the Soviets, were the pioneers in human space flight. Are we going to give up our place now? I hope not.

I will step down off my soap box and slink back to my corner now.

(Thanks Keith for providing a forum for when we need to vent a little)

@ Spaceboy: You nailed it! Great post. I can't image the mood at the HSF centers.

The thing that worries me tremendously, is how NASA got into it's present predicament, i.e a CX program that isn't going anywhere without $3B a year.

How this happened is beyond a simple "It's that ego maniac Griffen's fault for shoving ESAS down our throats". It is beyond simply saying: "We never got the funds Bush II promised we'd get!"

I think this moment in time (complete reversal of direction), while not as devastating as the Challenger Accident, or the Columbia Disaster, is none the less pointing to something about the cultural workings between NASA Field Centers, NASA HQ, Congress and the WH.

The dynamics of that working culture is still in play, no matter what direction HSF takes. In much the same way the CAIB pointed to the root cause of Columbia having to do with same root cause of Challenger, I am concerned that even with this new direction, because of the working dynamics between NASA/HQ/WH/Congress, the end result will be the same.

And no one is talking about this. Unless that dysfunction is revealed, I fear history will repeat it self.

And this is what I am 'hearing' in the background of many posts I've read over the past few days; People are not aligned on the new direction; no matter how bold or ambitious it may truly be; they are skeptical..even cynical. That is deadly if you are looking to engage a workforce in a new direction.

In the end, this is a failure of leadership among the leadership bodies involved here. And since the working dynamics aren't being addressed that have led to this moment, it will not matter who the leader is, we'll get more of the same as time unfolds.

Too many deaths experienced by a work force, those that are real (Columbia, Challenger) and those that are symbolic (end of Cx), leave folks drained, and protective of their vulnerability. Folks can survive this kind of thing; but will they thrive?

People at my job anticipate Constellation work to continue for the better part of this year. How am I supposed to do my work? How am I supposed to work on something for almost a year that is not even listed on the NASA main page anymore?

I just wish there will be some explanation on how the constellation centers and commercial contractors will get a piece of the new budget. We are carrying out NASA's mission as of 4 days ago. I didn't really have a strong opinion of whether it was Constellation or some other mission, but I arranged my life to work on NASA's current mission. I wanted to be apart of that. I moved my family to be apart of that. And now it has been changed and I'll just get laid off whenever the money gets turned off.

This is early retirement for the baby boomers. I'm not one of them, but all of the late 50's and early 60's baby boomers working on Constellation are going to be forced out prematurely. What a way to go, for a life of service these people give to the aerospace industry. Well I guess I'm just complaining and I need to suck it up.

I have to say that this briefing scared me a little. With only a few exceptions most of these companies have done little more than develop oversized toy rockets. Bolden is advocating killing a path to putting Americans in space merely on the hope that one of these toy rocket companies can find a way of putting human beings in space. From my army officer days I can say you never pass up a sure thing (even if it is a more expensive path) in favor of mere hopes. I would feel a lot more comfortable on taking this path if one of these companies came forwards with detailed launch vehicle designs which account for propulsion, structural dynamics, loads etc.... that also incorporated a manned capsule. Not to mention that their is no capsule design for them to integrate yet, so they have no idea what they need to build. I don't deny Aries-I was ill conceived and poorly managed, but the time to kill that program was at the minimum five years ago, we were to far into our path for the Obama/Bolden team to change direction now. I think Bolden was trying to put a sugar coating on a white elephant.

Someone explain the reaction that "thousands of jobs will be lost."

The budget is increasing. I think it would be more accurate to say that "thousands of jobs will change."

Of course change is no fun. No one wants to work on something for years and see it cancelled, but work is work. We get paid to work on what is funded.

I haven't seen anything that shows that people will be laid off and sent home. Isn't it more likely that people will be as busy as ever?

This leaves the Nations space program without a vision, because as it stands now NASA is the only orgination in America that can send men into space.

A ruined space program is the only major accomplishment so far in the Obama administration. JFK is rolling in his grave.

It is time to admit voting for Obama was a big mistake. There is not much else I or anyone else can say.

Great response.
"Bold", etc with zero realistic plans, equals "zero". Unless you want to count imagining ways to get to Mars in a few weeks as a goal. Looking like the Imagineers at Disney will have some work.

"The dynamics of that working culture is still in play, no matter what direction HSF takes."

That is why the White House is outsourcing all of NASA's space transport operations. After NASP, SEI, X-33, X-34, OSP and Constellation a very expensive, dysfunctional pattern emerged. The White House gave up on changing NASA's culture and its counterproductive relationship with Congress; in the end, if probably couldn't have changed it even if it tried. Exit NASA owned and operated space launch.

@Brunelleschi

Thousands of jobs will be lost because there are some companies that exist solely to service particular NASA contract(s). If those contracts disappear, the employees will have no work to do, and the companies will probably be dissolved by their parent companies, or go out of business in the case of smaller contractors.

Because we aren't Civil Servants, our companies have to bid on contracts that someone (usually NASA) has out 'requesting for proposals', and without a budget these companies will not be able to keep their workforce until someone puts out a contract, companies bid, bids are reviewed, bid negociations are held and finally maybe winning the contract, this can take many months or longer.

Despite what you may think, the large majority of the NASA (contractor) workforce is not just a giant pool of employees that can be moved and reassigned at will, there is a lot of things that have to go into it to make that sort of thing happen.

People People People

It is what it is and there NEVER was anything any of us could ever do about it--Period!

You could complain to your managers and to your representatives or congressmen all you want but the fact is the decision was always out of our hands.

The decision to create AND cancel Constellation both---out of our hands.

And to all you contractor folk out there--did you REALLY expect to have a lifelong career at NASA?

NO!

You're just like me--you hoped it would last forever and maybe even get rolled into a civil servants job one day but realistically you knew in the back of your head that when the time came for bodies to roll out the gate--it would be ours first!

So now a lot of us will be looking for a job and yes we may have to even move---CHANGE is inevitable!

YES--its a bad time for even more job losses but when isn't it? I am very surprised the president would decide on a course of action that would cost even more jobs at this time.

Yes--my job is also on the chopping block--but the fact is--that it was ALWAYS on the chopping block!

Every single botched project, canceled project, loss of work, shift in manpower, threat of RIF or loss of funding sent shock waves through every single contractor every single time it happened at my location.

So I hope all of you have tried to keep in mind like I have "The tip of the spear best be sharp" kind of attitude, mindset and work ethic so we can successfully rejoin the corporate world outside the gates of the country clubs we have been accustomed to working at.

Did anyone really think that NASA or the Government could or was willing to endlessly funding multi billion dollar space programs forever?

Its been 40yrs since we went to the moon--if we were gonna go back anytime soon--we would have by now! I am not saying that we will never go back.

Next news flash......How long do you expect NASA or Obama to continue supporting 9 field centers that aren't really doing anything?

I've spent the last 17 years with NASA and I am "Thankful" for every single day of it that I "survived" as a contractor.

But let's be realistic about it---we are and always were expendable!

So don't hate the civil servants--they got their deal and we got ours--we all knew contractor jobs were of an indefinite period of time.

Spiff...Out

Budgets are increasing for FY11, but NASA has no procurement plans in place to spend the money. Civil servants can be assigned to new projects, but the remaining funds have to be spent through procurements. Contracts cancelled, no new contracts planned to spend the funds. NASA will lose the money if they can't spend it, and without new procurements they can not.

@ Brunelleschi "I haven't seen anything that shows that people will be laid off and sent home. Isn't it more likely that people will be as busy as ever?"

Time and again, what most people do not realize, is that NASA does not do a bulk of the building on these programs. Companies like Boeing, ATK, Lockheed Martin and all of their many, many, many subcontractors, we are talking 100's of smaller companies. Making valves, pumps, electronic systems, whatever. They all have been gearing up and hiring a workforce that will execute the building of the Constellation program. When the money gets turned off sometime in the future, these companies will be forced to have massive layoffs. I'm not sure how many people this will be, could be 10,000. There won't be new money to keep these people working, unless NASA gives all of the constellation contractors R&D work.

@chrish -- all providers of capsules, launchers and launch services have to be 51% American made. So, if RosCosmos, ESA or the Chinese want to participate, they have to located a factory here in the states, just like Honda and Toyota do today.

@webbja -- I hardly call the Atlas V and Delta IV toy rockets. As for SpaceX, you have to crawl before you walk; in addition, they are working on the Merlin-2 engine, an F-1 clone, and are positioning themselves to address the medium and heavy lift market. Buzz Aldrin's company is also working on a heavy lift launcher done right -- in Buzz's words, he kept quite in the early seventies when the mistakes we're living with were made, he's too old to do that now.

I think we're going to see some truly innovative designs in the next few years. Certainly better and cheaper than Ares V was going to be.

@mikeshupp030 -- From what I heard in the last few days, no destination has been taken off the table. In fact, Bolden addressed this very issue in his press conference; he stated that previously there had been no national debate on where to go next -- the Moon was simply chosen. Well, we're going to have that debate. The young in this country were ambivalent about going back to the Moon -- you know, the "been there, done that" attitude. They're tired of living in the shadow of the baby boomers, and want their generation to accomplish something that shows they're greater than their parents. Hence the groundswell for Mars. Personally, I'm a Moon-first guy for a variety of reasons, but recognize that a Moon effort done wrong would have sucked all the air and money out of the room, leaving nothing for our young. Perhaps with a constructive national debate and a willingness to think outside of the box, we can make all Americans happy.

@zack -- Seeing conspiracy everywhere is a very American thing to do in the 21st century, but I'm afraid I must invoke Hanlon's razor here: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." I honestly don't think the Obama administration knew what direction to go with NASA a year ago. That's why the Augustine commission was formed. The men and women who served on that commission are patriots whose overriding mission was to help determine the best path forward for America in space. All options were on the table, there were no sacred cows.

One of the determinations of the commission was that launch to LEO is now a commodity business, and it's always a mistake for governments to be in commodities. Ares I illustrates that quite well: with zero growth potential and at $1B/launch, it's hard to come up with a less efficient way to get astronauts to low earth orbit. Also, with no redundancy any accident would freeze manned space flight for years, a situation you wouldn't tolerate with the airlines or trucking industry. No, something had to change, and the reality of it is that after five years of work there was precious little of Constellation that was worth saving. Orion will live on as the Boeing/Bigelow capsule, the lunar surface stuff and nuclear power plant will be saved and repurposed, and the technology advancements made across the board reapplied to our next set of spacecraft.

@all -- I have precious little insight into NASA internal management, but from the outside something sure does look wrong. Some of this was Griffin and his "my way or the highway" style of management, some of it was excessive bowing to vendors such as ATK, but to the average American NASA's manned space flight has lost its way. Some of this was expected with the end of the Shuttle; I just hope that NASA management can take the new Bolden initiative, do a little soul-searching, and then do what's right for the future of our nation in space.

Spaceguy and Gravity-
Hey, I hear ya. I'm a contractor too!

I am just not freaking out at all. The budget is larger. Whatever work the NASA centers shift to do, they are going to need support, just like they did with CxP.

Maybe I am crazy, but I see it as a chance to plug back in and do better. CxP was well under way when I started, and I've seen a lot of struggles. I would look forward to working on something new from the beginning.

Bolden keeps talking about us grieving and it being like a family member dying, etc... A totally devastating way to describe the "new plan"

BUT, in the teleconference Monday with all the reporters around the country asking questions about their particular Center, the standard reply to EVERY reporter was: Oh, thank you for your question, yes, we feel this budget is wonderful for (JSC, KSC, Marshall, etc..).

That was their answer across the board for EVERY center. Not one time did they say that this was bad for ONE center.

So, which is it Bolden? Is it rosey for all the centers and you are going to transition the workforce from Constellation to the new program?

Or, is it a death sentence for all of us to grieve over?

Please... Answer that would YOU !!!!!!!!!!!

Nailed it!

As far as I can see HSF Committee was largely a face saving exercise for the senior NASA Administrators who couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag.

My hope was that they were still in place and would be ejected in a high profile purge. Alas the real culprits had golden MLASs. They know who they are! These are the people that should be receiving approbation and derision. Not Augustine. Not Bolden and certainly not Obama.

Whilst my heart goes out to the lesser beings, you know the people who actually do Stuff.
Courage mes braves!
Once everything has settled down the American Space Effort and indeed the Global Space effort will be in a better place.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/04/Raul Malo-wants-to-be-the-next-deputy-center-director-at-marshall.html
:)

Google-Guy -

Not doubting your word but can you provide a reference for that 51% number - bandwidth here at Boeing is a tad limited today so no, I have not been able to watch the video.

I guess that if it comes right down to it, If you can't have an American product, "Assembled in Anerica" is better than nothing.

Thanks

Bolden needs to show some dignity and resign instead of pretending he's in charge and shedding crocodile tears.

Now I understand why Lester Lyles refused this job. I hope M. Griffin returns in 2012. Hang on Mike! This isn't over, not by a mile.

@chrish
It's the Buy American Act of 1933 that mandates that government procurements must be made of 51+% American made parts.

@Spaceboy
Constellation was not going to save any of the 7000 jobs lost at the end of Shuttle. That's the number projected given the current plan that is in place. Constellation has no money this year and next, none, not even enough to keep the program from slipping from 2015 to 2017. Maybe you didn't look at the budget for 2011 that is being proposed. Constellation is gone but the Exploration appropriation account went up $500 million. The following 4 years see another billion dollar increase in this account alone. You may ask why this money wasn't thrown at Constellation instead. The answer to that is that it wouldn't be enough to make a dent in Constellation's cost projections. They are astronomical and unsustainable. This program needs another $60 billion in the next 10 years to maintain its unrealistic schedule.

What I don't understand is why our senior leadership does not have a plan (if they do they haven't shared it) to move these displaced people from Shuttle and Constellation to the new work. Some people might have to move, but they would be working in the space industry. I would like to see a plan to place this talented workforce into the new work that is coming. Practically every funding line in the NASA budget goes up, so the work is there and it has to be done by somebody. Science $500M increase, Aeronautics and Space Technology $600M increase, Exploration $500M increase; Space Operations takes a $1.3B hit because the Shuttle retires, but ISS sees a $450M increase and Space Flight Support sees a $450M increase and the Shuttle gets $1 billion for one flight in 2011 (and closeout) that was not shown in previous budgets. I see $3.5 billion dollars in increases in other work areas in NASA compared to last years budget. What I want to know is where is the plan to put displaced workers on these tasks. There will not be 100% skill match, but there is no reason to lay off 10,000 people in one area and have to hire 10,000 more in other areas. The budget goes up $300 million dollars in a year that every other agency sees a cut or flat budget. The following 4 years show another $2 billion increase beyond that. How can our budget increase and we layoff thousands? We should be pushing to implement this new plan properly rather than trying to revive a program with no chance of survival.

Nobody really believes this madness can continue. Either Obama or Bolton will come to their senses or congress with simply add to NASA's budget incrementally. Most experts I have heard say the privatization plan simply will not work because the private space companies are not ready. Most of the things Bolton talked about are decades away from realization. I was surprised he did not talk about faster than light travel! When the private space companies are still landlocked in 2020 NASA will take over. However, the Obama plan is so ridiculous it will probably be scrapped way before then. Eventually, privatization will be the best way to get to space, but that is 30 years away. In the meantime constellation is our best bet, and it now looks like congress has realized this. When the American public realizes how utterly ridiculous this is they will again back NASA. Right now I am finding this whole thing amusing. After hearing space experts and congressman ridicule this plan I feel so much better today. This space plan of Obama’s will fall faster than health care did last year. We will soon have NASA back in the saddle again. Anyone here knows in the back of their mind this is true. We have been here before with the defunct space plane. I would not be surprised if the shuttle comes back for another half decade. It always comes back to the shuttle – doesn’t it?

This is privatization plan is going nowhere folks!!!!! In the meantime maybe we can just have some fun mocking these amateurs. You have to admit it is pretty funny.

@possum

Because the increased budget is a myth. I did look at the budget for 2011 and then I went back and looked at 2010 and 2009 for comaprison. First of all, the budget increased by $300 million between 2010 and 2011. However, $600 million is going to shuttle. A shuttle that is not supposed to fly in 2011, it is a contingency plan for safety. So, if shuttle completes its missions before the end of September, what happens to that $600 million? Since it would be appropriated to fly shuttle in the first quarter of 2011, if shuttle is done flying, the budget goes back. Secondly, the Exploration budget did not go up, here is a history of the last 3 budget requests for exploration if it will take the format:

_____|___2009__|__2010__|___2011__|___2012__|___2013__|___2014__|___2015__
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

Can somebody explain to me how this is an increase?

I am not saying Constellation is perfect, far from it, but I am saying that if you are going to toss it in the garbage bin, than you should have had a plan that consists of more than saying BOLD, AMBITIOUS and FORWARD THINKING. The blind side they did to all of manned space flight both civil servants and contractors has sent morale down the toilet. I have never seen anything like this. Bolden was asked about the lack of a vision today and he dodged the question completely. Meanwhile he was telling us to surrender and get on board because the President was never ever going to change his mind (his words, not mine) and that he was not going to fight for Constellation. He tells us to get on board and be excited without giving us anything to be excited about other than vague promises of something in the unforeseeable future. If you want us excited, give us goals, give us a destination, give us a timeline and give us a mission.

One other thing, people keep likening this to other cancelled programs and say dont worry. However, those things wer not programs, they were projects (X-33, X-34, OSP, etc) and the Shuttle Program was never ending when those projects were in work. There has not been a true Program ending since Apollo ended. So there is a big difference, HUGE difference between cancelling Constellation at the same time shuttle is ending and cancelling projects in the past when the shuttle was still flying ans ISS was ramping up. Shuttle is over, ISS is ramping down, even with the extension. Big difference.

Thanks all for listening.

@Brunelleschi

"I am just not freaking out at all. The budget is larger. Whatever work the NASA centers shift to do, they are going to need support, just like they did with CxP.

Maybe I am crazy, but I see it as a chance to plug back in and do better. CxP was well under way when I started, and I've seen a lot of struggles. I would look forward to working on something new from the beginning."

First of all, I gather from your comment that you are at the beginning of your career and that is excellent for you, I know the excitement you feel. However, some of us have been working in the industry for 10, 15, 20, 30 years or more. We have houses, we have spouses, we have children in school. It is not that easy to just pick up and move when you have children and working spouses. Additionally the housing market is so bad, that we will all lose our shirts on our houses, if we can even sell them. So this is something for you to consider, before you decide this is great for everyone.

Second of all, it will take a minimum of 6 months to even get bids going and 2 years before any real contracts are awarded. (But first they will have to decide what if anything the companies are bidding on) While companies are bidding contracts, they use small groups of top performers to work the bids. They do not hire new people to do it and they certainly dont have hundreds or thousands of people working on it. Orion was in work for 2 years before Lockheed Martin won the contract to design and build it. At that point they started hiring like mad. Before that, there was a small team working the proposal phases. My point being, money with no project or plans in place will not lead to immediate job creation. There were already thousands losing shuttle jobs, now thousands are losing Constellation jobs, where are all these people going to go?

The small companies that are going to benefit from this are not going to turn around and hire thousands of engineers either. They may hire a few hundred eventually, but not thousands and it will take time. The transition will be long and hard and NASA will lose many good engineers to other industries because you cant support your family on Bold and Ambitious Hopes for an eventual program.

Also, the skill sets required to work at different centers is different. The skills needed at JSC/KSC/MSFC are very different from those needed at GRC/GSFC/JPL etc. I can see many whose skill sets are very focused, especially at JSC and KSC, they are experts in what they do, but they dont have a lot of experience doing other things. It will be hard for those people to move to other centers.

One last thing, 3 to 4 years of us, many of us also were "looking forward to working on something new from the beginning" so we climbed on board Orion or Ares or Constellation. So much for working something from the beginning.

If these 7 companies are so great, why didn't NASA select these contractor 5 years ago?