NASA Is Oblivious

Just for that, Jim, I'm going to go watch Avatar again...for a third time. Thanks beacoup for the great editorial!

That was a very well written and insightful OpEd by James Cameron. It's obvious that he understands the issues involved. NASA PAO should be all over this.

Word. Cameron's eloquent, explicit support for the new vision should be gobbled up immediately with enthusiasm by NASA.

Maybe the administration can follow-up over NasaTV ...in 3D!

The dateline on the article is Feb 5 - tomorrow. It would be pretty damn quick for NASA to respond to an article before it's published... in fact, premature, don't you think? ;-) Is there another source for this same article, so that we all could have read it several days ago, including Morrie? If not, I think you're being unfair.

And is there any top-level NASA web page where they would normally post news and opinion links about their programs? I know they have one for Kepler, but on http://www.nasa.gov or at the directorate level, I don't see "Press Clips" or any other natural place to put this. In fact, wouldn't you think it odd, and say so in NASA Watch, if NASA devoted much effort to tracking and linking all of its "attaboys"? We don't normally want our agencies to pat themselves on the back, especially when there's a debate raging.

Good Grief Charlie Brown.

The man is a film maker and all he did was make Dances with Sexy Smurfs in space.

And portray humanity as vicious murdering plundering psychopaths. I'll take Star Trek thanks. You can keep Avatar.

We have little to NO *specifics* on how exactly Obama-plan is supposed to be better then Constelllation meeting ANY major space goals other then LEO and ISS stuff.

If it is going to land on the moon before Connie was going to, where is mention of landers even?
Because we need to start building them pretty damn soon if Obama's plan iswas going to beat a *properly* funded constellation or similar plan.

Depending on where on Earth he was, it could have been Friday, Feb. 5 already.

Keith, I am a successful entrepreneur and sold an IT company for $120,000,000 so I am all for "commercialization of LEO" and privatization. But the 800lbs gorilla no one is discussing in the proposed budget is this: "Researching" a new heavy lift vehicle does not do anything to advance the US's manned position in space whether it be for science, exploration or defense. Had the proposed budget included some actual meaningful direction other than "research" on heavy lift such as Atlas, Delta or even the private sector I would have totally agreed with this plan. As you know "research and study" are merely candy to soften the debate. The reality is the US space program except for a few taxi rides to LEO just got dismantled so I don't share your enthusiasm. I usually agree with you on most issues but this one leaves me scratching my head. I guess one could say we don't need a government based manned HLV and to those I'd love to know how they came to that conclusion. This is a minor issue but along the lines of Senator Nelson's recent comment - what happens when (not if) SpaceX has a major setback. Who will back them up and fund them to go forward? Wall Street? Their board of directors? Mr. Musk?

Please tell me where I am wrong as I am sure you know a lot more about space than I do.

The problem with traveling beyond LEO is radiation. And robots are not going to help humans alleviate that problem! And you certainly don't need robots to precede humans going to the Moon unless they're building a permanent base for humans.

We certainly don't need any more R&D in order to figure out how to build a heavy lift vehicle-- unless that R&D is going into build a totally reusable SSTO vehicles, which I doubt.

If we really want to reduce the cost of manned space flight then we have to build the simplest and safest vehicle possible and then use it a lot. Its high demand that's going to reduce the cost of space flight not more R&D that basically tells us what we already knew back in 1964. We've dreamed and studied this stuff to death already! Now its time to build something!

Marcel F. Williams

> If it is going to land on the moon before Connie was going to, where is mention of landers even?
Because we need to start building them pretty damn soon if Obama's plan iswas going to beat a *properly* funded constellation or similar plan.

Constellation wasn't going to be launching any lunar landers until sometime in the 2030s (or early 2020s with completely unrestrained funding). The commercial providers have plenty of time to spare if there's NASA desire to do an Apollo redux.

A "properly" funded Constellation program would still not get us to the Moon before 2030. Space is simply not a high enough priority to boost NASA's budget by $150 billion over the next 20 years to make that happen. Besides, NASA is no longer capable of competently managing a program of this size and complexity. I see that everyday at work. Those in charge of all aspects of human space flight have no design experience, only Shuttle ops. Industry is our only hope for success. If they can't do it, the US can't do it because NASA cannot.

A minor point, but the highest grossing movie of all time is Gone With the Wind. Titanic is #6 and Avatar is currently #21. Not taking into account inflation is just plain silly.

It's fitting that someone who spins fairy tales in the make believe
world of Hollywood endorses the fairy tale that is the Obama HSF
program.

No Shuttle, No Constellation, No Mission, No nothing!

Well, maybe a 1965 HSF LEO capability from firms who
have never done it before.

"These are the faces of the new frontier!"
Now that's a fairy tale.

Actually it's a bunch of fluff from Bolden's song and dance.
An insult to anyone currently doing real HSF.

"Mars in weeks!"

"Simultaneously fanning out into the solar system!"

BOLD! EXCITING! GAME CHANGING!

Game changing technologies? More like political cover.
A bunch of words to placate space fans.

You need a well defined mission, space cadets.
Oh we'll get one, just as soon as we do some research....
Just a little more research.....
Then we'll pick some place to go.....
And it'll be exciting and bold and....

More fairy tales.

"A "properly" funded Constellation program would still not get us to the Moon before 2030"...."possum".

Well "possum", your conclusion is not supported by the findings of the Augustine Committee. Honestly, I don't know why I keep reading and responding to your posts other than that they have that "bus full of nuns over the cliff" kind of quality.

Perfect post.

SpaceWriter... your questions are interesting, but.

> "Researching" a new heavy lift vehicle does not do anything to advance the US's manned position in space

I think research will advance whoever does it. If you believe there is a conspiracy then no one can help you with this complaint.

> The reality is the US space program except for a few taxi rides to LEO just got dismantled

This may be the crux of your thinking, in which case it is critical for you to understand that the US space program is already just taxi rides to LEO.

> I guess one could say we don't need a government based manned HLV and to those I'd love to know how they came to that conclusion.

Experts say you don't need super-heavy-lift-class wide fairings and lift capability just to put people on the moon. That is just what they say.

> what happens when (not if) SpaceX has a major setback.

It doesn't matter. There are multiple companies doing this. Unless you believe americans aren't capable of doing the job, in which case you've got bigger problems than this.

I'm talking about reality based on NASA's track record. Augustine was optimistic about Constellation's cost but not as optimistic as the program. The report was generous to Constellation because it did not outright declare it a failure. I know how far off NASA's cost estimates are historically, it's pitiful. We are always off by a factor of 3 to 6. Believe what you will. I hope Constellation gets reinstated by Congress so that 20 years from now I will be proven right. Constellation has no chance of getting to the Moon, NONE. I know, I work here and see what this program is doing every day. I also see the big picture and it is ugly. No need to respond to my posts, just laugh or shrug.

>

Its been 40 years, the old plan would have been 60 years, and now there is no plan. So the evidence would say no, we are not capable of doing the job.

The moon is the easiest place to go to, if we can't there we can't go anywhere.

I respect Cameron for being a space enthusiast and all. But am I the only one who thinks that he was asked to do this by somebody in the administration (or somebody in the private new space sector?) perhaps as a favor to help with its cold reception. His Op Ed is basically a hodge podge of all the recent press releases and he even uses the word "Bold" two or three times. Seriously, what does Cameron know about Constellation, Orion or Ares? Absolutely nothing except for what he has read in press releases an perhaps the Augustine Report. What does he know about the new "plan" nothing, because other than we will get private companies to bring astronauts to station, nothing else has been defined. Did anybody tell Cameron that thousands of high technology jobs will be lost between now and October with the Shuttle ending and Constellation cancelled? Also, I have a hard time listening to a man say the price is too high, when this man made a movie that between production costs and advertising could have funded two space shuttle missions. Seriously, he is going to complain about something costing too much?

OK, lets not talk about Constellation, because as of Monday, Constellation is dead. Lets talk about the plan. What do we know about it? We know it is bold. How bold? Well, it is very very very bold because Bolden, Garver et al use the word bold about 40,000 time in every press conference.

What else do we know about. We know it is a "paradigm shift" and "game changing". How do we know this, because every press conference and every piece of paper they put out about it tells us that it is.

So what is this Bold, paradigm shifting, game changing new program? That's what we want to know. How can you have a program without a clear set of objectives? How can you have a program with out a timeline? How can you have a program without a mission?

These are the questions people want answered. When asked these questions at every press conference and all hands meeting I attended, Bolden, Garver and company spouted "paradigm shifting, game changing, its bold, very bold" over and over again. No matter how many times you tell me this, I am not going to believe it until I see some actual plans.

We waited over a whole year for the Obama change in policy that we knew was coming since election day. You would think in a year's time somebody could have come up with a little more meat than "bold, paradigm shifting, game changing" new plan.

As flawed as you may think Constellation was, it had a vision, it had clear goals and it had a timeline. The schedule may have been in question, but that was due to lack of funding from the previous and current administration. Constellation's objective was to return humans to the moon, set up a base on the moon and than go to Mars and beyond. These are concrete and tangible goals. "Bold, paradigm shifting, game changing technolgies" are not tangible goals. They are a grab bag wish list.

So, tell me what replaces Constellation and when? Because I see no funding and no objectives and no architecture for anything to do that yet. Dont forget, Constellation was moon, mars and beyond when conceived. It was given the task of station crew rotation later. Tell me we are going to develop Ion propulsion with a soft goal of going to Mars by 2025, tell me we are going to develop a heavy lifter, tell me we are going to set up a base on the moon or on an asteroid to learn more about living in partial gravity and utilizing resource available on the surface. ell me any of these things and I can start to get excited. Dont tell me we are going to research various different things with less budget than Constellation had with the intention of potentially using it on some future program and expect to get something out of it.

BTW: Make no mistake, I have no problems with commercial crew eventually taking over crew rotation of ISS. It just should have been part of a larger package, not the only thing. What I really see with the commercial segment is 3 companies that have a chance. Boeing and Lockheed Martin within the next 4 years because of their experience and their roles in Constellation and SpaceX within the next 6-10 years, with their inhouse development and perseverance. (lets not forget 4 years have passed since their first Falcon 1 launch after over a year of delays and they have still not launched a cargo version of the Falcon 9, with its 3 flight demonstration already a year behind schedule.) The sad thing is, that this really just became a recompete of the Orion Contract between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. After 2 years of competition between the two and over 3 years of Lockheed Martin working on the design after they won the contract. Dont believe me? Lockheed already announced they could have a stripped down Orion ready to launch by 2013 and Boeing announced they could fly a capsule, which they even called "Orion lite" within 2 to 3 years. But seriously, if you are going to let them compete with Orion, then why even cancel Orion to begin with? Augustine kept Orion in just about every one of their options.

The only question I have left is, does James Cameron have any investments in New Space? (I mean if I had his money, I would.) I know many of the small companies have partners and investors who have not been made public and if anybody would be into something like that and have the money to do it, it would be him. But if he does, than it kind of puts a different light on his praise of commercial companies getting money too. Just a thought.

> So, tell me what replaces Constellation and when?

It should be obvious by now but the Constellation human exploration program is being replaced by boosts to every other program.

They are cancelling a system of old technology for more use of the ISS, more new science, more new robotics, and more R&D into human mission technology.

The human missions will come when a better job can be done.

Great post Spaceboy!

Keep those pesky uncomfortable questions coming!

One thing for sure, they won't be able to get away with "bold and exciting" in front of congress.

Garver is going to be in way over her head that is for sure. Bolden I don't know, he looks like someone would expect of someone carrying water for his boss.

But hey, Maybe Obama knows something we don't and is going to make that secret alien technology available to private industry. :P LOL

The thing is that Orion (and probably other parts of Constellation as well) suffered from many problems: poor choice of contractors, outdated technology, far too many cooks in the kitchen, and unreasonably restrictive requirements, to name a few. No amount of funding or time was going to resolve those problems; Orion and the Ares rockets would have been built eventually, but they wouldn't have been the astounding feats of engineering that previous NASA architectures had been, and a decade after their first launch we'd run out of things that they were able to do.


So from that standpoint, yes: ending Constellation is a Good Thing. If nothing else, it allows everybody to step back, apply some lessons learned from the program, and have a "do over" - hopefully with better results.


Ending Constellation without immediately jumping into another similar program is also a Good Thing, and here's why: one of the lessons learned from Constellation is that requirements were coming in from all sides, and they were constantly changing, and work on various systems was spread among dozens of centers and contractors, and nobody knew what was going on - if someone had a great idea that would make the vehicle much better, it couldn't be integrated because other requirements had already forced it out. By allowing NASA to do good basic research in the design of the systems and subsystems that make up a *great* spacecraft first, then tasking them with designing that spacecraft, we can not only apply the lessons learned from Constellation - we can start with a clean sheet of paper and make requirements based on what we know we need to make a great spacecraft, then integrate it.


If it takes a decade to get to the point of starting the design of a new vehicle, that's not so bad because the people who designed the subsystems and learned the lessons from Constellation will still be around, and we won't have to listen to a bunch of geriatric Apollo designers reminiscing about their work 50 years ago to learn how to design and build a spacecraft that would have been great 50 years ago.

Spaceboy - Best post I have read in a long time. You hit it on the head. No one is addressing the replacement issue as you have stated it so well. "Research and Study" HLV, "wait till we have better" this or that are code words for "Lets gut NASA. Kill it and leave a few harmless taxi rides for SpaceX." Who knows maybe they were forced to stand down and take a back seat by the Chinese. America is for sale now that we are so far in debt.

I'm convinced, absolutely convinced some of you with your mindset today would have been overjoyed if Apollo had been flat out cancelled after the fire.

There are two major flavors of enemies of NASA human spaceflight, the ignorant element of the public, and the I'm smarter then the rest of ya space advocates.

On this particular point, I cut PAO/PR some slack...with the changes they don't know up from down right now, they're in the middle of a launch and they're getting hammered with a winter storm to boot.

That said, I've been very discouraged at the fact that we have the best qualified (NASA's words) group that has spent almost a year now trying to get PAO to just engage with us on a partnership to reach and inspire much, much more effectively than they do with the current media vehicles - most notably NASA TV.

If the newly mandated solution for NASA to rely on commercial sector for space transportation, let's hope they can apply the same logic with the media functions, and we can create a TV channel that both conveys the spirit and import of NASA (along with the innumerable other adventures about space and flight) with the production values and storytelling skills of a Jim Cameron.

Am I missing something? The detractors keep harping on how the new "Plan" has no direction, no goals, and no purpose...

Isn't the purpose to open up a space economy by transition the "business" of human spaceflight from the public to the private sector? Isn't that accomplished by seeding the private sector with otherwise unforthcoming funding? Isn't that also accomplished by removing the historic position of sole government ownership from any future developed crew vehicle?

Isn't "The Plan" doing all of these things???

James, That's the crux of the issue. NASA's official prime directive, which is it's reason for existence is (and I quote an official NASA website):

“To improve life here, To extend life to there, To find life beyond.” —NASA Mission Statement

“NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.” —NASA Mission

“To understand and protect our home planet, To explore the Universe and search for life, and To inspire the next generation of explorers... as only NASA can.” —NASA Vision

The Administration's new direction does little to support NASA's official charter. Yeah, Some exploration will be done, but it's quite a stretch to say that inspiring the next generation of explorers means cutting existing exploration programs to fund private sector spaceflight as Taxis to the ISS (paid to just deliver an item to LEO, not explore). Not that promoting private space flight is bad (it's very good), it's just not NASA's main reason to exist. Their are other agencies and organizations that can just as easily fund private enterprise and have been doing so for years (X-Prize comes to mind).

@wm, you're right privatization of human spaceflight does seem to contradict those core values stated in various mission statements, doesn't it?

I think there is an even deeper sentiment here, and it is whether or not you believe that spaceflight is the domain of altruism vs. capitalism. Those statements you cite are very obviously influenced by the former philosophy whereas the new direction is heavily weighted toward the latter. As this dichotomy tends to sharply define people's beliefs in general, it is no wonder that people seem so divided on this new direction.

@eep

"If it takes a decade to get to the point of starting the design of a new vehicle, that's not so bad because the people who designed the subsystems and learned the lessons from Constellation will still be around, and we won't have to listen to a bunch of geriatric Apollo designers reminiscing about their work 50 years ago to learn how to design and build a spacecraft that would have been great 50 years ago."

Huh? How do you figure? KSC is expected to now lose 12,000 jobs! JSC I would assume is in the 5,000 range. MSFC in the 2,000 range. Those are the biggest hits. Where are 20,000 people going to "still be around" in a decade? Seriously, what is your logic here? When people lose their jobs, they need to find new ones. The mass destruction of jobs at JSC/KSC/MSFC leaves nowhere for these people to go except other industries, many will have to move to other states, to support other industries. They will not be sitting their waiting 10 years. I dont know any engineers down here who are independently wealthy and do not need to work.