You Know You Messaging Plan Is Not Working When ...

C'mon post that video and any photos from KSC of the protesters.

The Hitler thing is just a common theme with anything controversial (my favorite recent version was when Conan lost The Tonight Show), don't expect it to be taken too seriously.

I think that the only real PR mistake made here is that Bolden didn't have the plan already in writing when they announced the budget. Right now we don't know what the budget is going to do, comprehensively speaking. We know it's going to commercialize space (good), we know that it's going to produce new tech, possibly for deep space ships. This is not very clear from the simple budget proposal pdf that was released. You contrast this with ESAS which took several months to put together, and you see a big difference. I think once Bolden and NASA release their new vision ("Realized Vision for Space Exploration" or something like that) people who were against it before will be for it.

What I do find sad is the fact that so many people who one would have expected to parrot the market and private industry are swarming behind the corporate welfare program that was Cx, and even parroting "jobs" as a reason to back Cx. It's just so disappointing to see such a role reversal. But I think it is exaggerated.

To assume that the execution of the "message" is to blame for people being upset at Obama's grand vision for NASA is a bit naive. It doesn't matter how much one sugar coats a cow pie it's still a cow pie.

However to say the "Obama Lied, NASA Died" is a bit naive also. Obama didn't lie, as this is the "redirection" on which he campaigned. Bold, Exciting and New may be the message but no amount of spin is going to add substance to it.

It ain't gonna get any better.
They have no idea what they are doing.
You have once chance to make a first impression.
It's all damage control now.

Congress is going to tear this thing up and send them back to the drawing board.
We all know it.

Comparing anyone to megalomaniacs such as Adolf Hitler is never a good thing without extreme justification. However, I am not sure what people expected. The average members of the public as well as many well educated engineers are not going to accept a plan as bold and visionary that does not do something bold and visionary. Obama's vision outlines a plan to possibly put us in a position to do something bold, but does not actually do anything bold in itself. NASA is a an organization that must continue to advance not only in engineering technology, but in what we do with that technology. The public is not content to continue funding NASA at its current level to merely sit in LEO. I think the average citizen thinks that we should either do something worth our money or save our money and do nothing.

I do agree that we have failed to do any development for nearly 30 years which might have made our attempt to go to the moon cheaper and easier. But in NASA's defense, the few times they tried to do any serious engineering developments such as SP-100 which would vastly enable future missions, they got their hands slapped by congress for spending on tech development that did not support any current missions. So I do agree that a better balance is needed between missions and tech development, but stating that a plan with no definite goals and that may also leave us in LEO is visionary and bold is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

@joshcryer

You are right. I head Bolden at KSC today and he said he wanted to study Heavy Lift for a few months. He also said he would of liked to complete this study before announcing the cancellation of Constellation but it had to be in the budget.

It almost sounded like he wanted an international Heavy Lift Vehicle and get the partners on board early and get started soon. If that was well defined then I think you are right people would be on board.

What plan? Doesn't a plan require milestones, objectives, etc? All we have are vague promises to send money to the 'Commercial Human Space' program in return for something, someday ... maybe.

The Russians must be laughing their heads off as they figure their next increase in Soyuz prices, and also how price Proton/Angara HLV rockets to launch ISS replacement modules after 2020 when the kicking and screaming begins so 'commercial human space' doesn't go out of business after it looses its NASA customer.

As for ULA, suddenly they are quiet as they in turn also see the writing on the wall. If Falcon-9 sends humans then it's harder to argue for buying overpriced Atlas-V and Delta-IVs.

The problem with such 'revolutions' is that we know when they begin, but can rarely predict where they'll 'head' to as Robespierre discovered.

when I go to KSC in the morning I will take note if there are protesters. It may be too early in the morning though. I doubt I'll take photos and if I do, I'd be very hesitant to share them without permission.

I'm not sure whether or not I agree or disagree with protesting outside the gate. There WILL be more of it around the KSC/Brevard community. It's not just the NASA/contractor employees either, but the entire community. It's going to get pretty ugly as the year wears on. That much said, the Hitler video I think is just tasteless. It reminds me of what people did to Bush when he was president. If it's wrong for one side to do something tasteless, then it's just as wrong for the other side.

Obama has pretty much thrown away the state of Florida for his 2012 campaign. He's turned his back against the legacy of John Kennedy and ironically become the new Nixon as far as the space program in Florida is concerned. And that can't be good!

Marcel F. Williams

ATK is conducting the last-ever test firing of an RSRM for the shuttle program on Feb. 25.

Come to think of it, that video is actually pretty hilarious. "Cancel my NASA TV". Still, I have the feeling people in some circles are going to be surprised at how many people actually supported the VSE and Constellation, and how empassioned the protesting is going to be. Cancelling a government program is a matter of putting a line item in a budget, but, at least for Constellation, this program is not going to go away quietly.

What worries me is what aerospace workers are going to do. I don't mean outright sabotage, but distractions, worrying about their families and how to put food on the table or having to move are things that can lead to slip-ups and mistakes. Manned spaceflight isn't forviging enough to tolerate that. I would hate for something to go wrong because somebody made a mistake because they were pre-occupied with wondering how they're going to sell the house in a crashed market.

I don't know about anywhere else, but here on the Space Coast it's going to be horrible, possibly worse than post-Apollo, at least for the northern half of Brevard county.

Hopefully, when Administrator Bolden speaks to the media tomorrow morning, he will have some positive (detailed?) words that will help the mood. Even the clerks at the Visitor Center are worried and angry.

Bolden needs to build the Jupiter HLV IMO. Its the fastest and the cheapest option. We don't need a super HLV (we're not going to Mars with any chemical rocket Mr. Bolden!), just one that can lift 70 to 110 tonnes into orbit. If we need to send any extra tonnage beyond LEO, we could always use fuel depots. So a Jupiter HLV is just right size.

But for any deep space manned mission, we're still going to need to develop the Orion. Even Augustine Commission member Leroy Chiao said that he was shocked that the Orion-CEV was not being funded!

Marcel F. Williams

Regarding the Hitler rant: I thought it was meant to criticise the Constellation leadership as being in deep denial, not as a criticism of Obama.

"Some things the nation does are too important to be left solely to the vagaries of the marketplace. Human spaceflight is one of them."

— Michael Griffin, NASA administrator 2005-2009

I guess now it's Obama's fault that 7,000 contractors at KSC are going to be laid off, even though Bush ended the Shuttle program years ago. Constellation was not going to hire 7,000 ops people when it is years away from operations. There was some room for picking up some people, but most don't have the skill sets for what is needed at this point in the program. It is yet to be seen if this new budget proposal will survive, or if it does how many more jobs will be created since the budget goes up in many other areas. As the details of the projects coming out of this budget get filled in, it will become more clear. Change is always difficult and the status quo shreds any change as destructive. This is a radical change, one that is needed for survival of the Agency in my opinion, so the reaction is rabid. Constellation is dead whether it gets canceled or not due to poor program management and prior leadership. You may say it is underfunded, but it is poor management to pursue a program that requires massive future budget increases instead of fitting within the budget constraints of reality. But when the optimistic projections of funding do not materialize, you can always blame it on not getting enough money. Had the program pursued a truly Shuttle-derived architecture, we would be flying real test flights right now and would be in a position to eliminate the gap with operational flights in 2011 (the original ESAS ORD).

Red Moon Rising
Senior Chinese space officials have told their state media that China could be on the moon by 2022 at the outside. Other authoritative Chinese space engineers see a moon landing as a next step in the Tiangong program that will launch three Chinese space stations into Earth orbit between 2011 and 2015. In 2008, NASA scientists told the Bush White House that, with the technology currently available to the Chinese space program, Chinese cosmonauts could be on the moon by 2017. Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/08/china-eyes-high-ground//print/

After yesterday's retreat, the US and Europe will fall behind in the space race. The next man on the moon will be Chinese. Source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/01/us-space-mission-cuts-mars

Regarding the Hitler rant: I don't think it's meant to criticize anyone. It's just making fun of the whole pathetic situation.

I know watching it was the first time I've been able to laugh about this mess. I've been in shock since Monday (Orion Mechanisms).

"Our fondest desire would be to keep NASA on the very frontier of space activity, letting commercial providers fill in for those activities which are not frontier activities. We will be putting some money where our mouth is."

- Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator 2005-2009

So human spaceflight is more important than health care? How 'bout "some things are so irrelevant to the marketplace that your tax money has to be seized to fund them." This is another ignorant quote by the arrogant bastard that destroyed human space flight for NASA.

"Some things the nation does are too important to be left solely to the vagaries of the marketplace. Human spaceflight is one of them."

This is B.S. Nothing is more important to America than the marketplace. Griffin is a Soviet era Design Bureau Chief in Republican's clothing.

If Obama lied did the Augustine Commission lie too? People are so misguided it's sad and pathetic. If you really believe that the Augustine Commission was lying when it said that it would take another 3 billion dollars per year to complete the program of record ... you are crazy. It probably would have cost more. Obama is not doing this to kill the space program, to abandon JFK's legacy, or for any of the other more fanatical reasons given. He is doing it because the money (and especially the votes for more money) are not there. Futhermore, he is doing it because sending ISS into the ocean after it was just completed is insane and would remove what little credibility NASA has left. Obama never promised that a strong vision for space requires the continuation of Constellation. In many ways he is making an inspired attempt to make the best of a bad situation ... little support for additional spending on space ... and inheriting a program that was unsustainable. Any twisting of the facts to make this look like Obama's fault, as if he were taking a hatchet to the space program (while supporting a $6B increase) is baseless. Talk about lies?

I hate to use an old idiom but , isn't this discussion pretty much MOOT at this point? Can congress or anyone do anything? Is this just a bunch of fist on the table pounding and heated debates? A s far as the political side of it, its a unfortunate reality. Space flight takes money , Disposable money. Until Space flight is profitable these types of discussions will continue.Again and unfortunate reality and no secret to anyone . Money talks and you know the rest.I just find it hard to believe in 60 years of putting objects in orbit we can find a better way than chemicals. Damn that Gravity! Still kicking our ass after all these years:|

Just gimme something cheap to LEO eggheads. That is the whole trick right there. That happens and the space flood gates open. Damn gravity!

On a side note Lamont and I would like to thank everyone who showed up for our dogs funeral.Rest in peace Rosco

Well "possum" you're quite emotional aren't you. Let me see if I get this straight, Mike Griffin singlehandedly destroyed an entire agency in his four short years? I'm sure that he wishes he had that kind of power. Seriously, it's time for another fact check my friend. HSF was slowly "destroyed" over the last 40+ years by shortsighted Presidents, Congressmen and Senators not Mike Griffin.

Yes there are some things that should be funded EVEN THOUGH they can't be justified economically.

Yes HSF is more important than the government nationalizing 1/7 of the nation's economy by seizing the health care industry.

TJ do you have any idea whatsoever about what you are saying????

Yes, the Augustine Commission said COnstellation was unsustainable. Unsustainable at the current funding level and needed at least $3 billion more a year to have a chance. This does not mean cancel the program, this means, if you want the program to succeed, you need to fund it adequately, or at least better.

Then you say the money is not there. huh? The money isnt there? If the money isnt there, then maybe we should not be giving $31 Billion to General Motors. If the money isnt there, then maybe we should not be giving $22 Billion to the rest of the AMerican Auto Industry. Remember, these are private companies, not government agencies and they were granted a value that is 3 times NASAs annual budget and nearly 20 times the Constellation budget. If the money isnt there, then how come we can raise the Dept of Education budget $4 billion a year two years in a row, in ADDITION to giving them $100 BILLION in stimulus spending! So dont give me this B.S. that the government can give billions of dollars to every tom, dick and jane, but when it comes to NASA - wait! we cant afford it!

As for the increased budget, it is a myth. Take a look at the Exploration Budget 5 year plan in 2009, 2010 and 2011 - the budget has been cut drastically. Even with the 6 billion going to a couple of so called commercial comapnies.

What I have never understood is this. If the so called private sector says they can do it and they can do it cheaper, faster and better than NASA and it's Prime Contractors on Constellation - Knock yourselves out! No one is stopping you! If you are private and anti-government space agency, than why do you need $6 billion dollars from the government. Develop your dang rocket and contact the government when you are done and offer rides for a fee. Isnt that a true commercial venture? I mean, this is really the approach SpaceX has taken. They developed on private money and then won a contract to do station cargo supply. They will earn a large chunk of cash from NASA once they complete their demos and start flying hardware. Why do all these other companies need $6 billion from NASA to create "private" and "commercial" space?

One more thing in regards to Augustine. Every option they presented but 1 had Orion. More than half of their options kept Ares V or an Ares V derivative. None of their options called for complete cancellation of everything. The decision on this was made long before the Augustine Report. The Report was just a smoke screen.

I do agree however, that Obama did not really lie about Constellation while campaigning in Florida. I remember reading his words and saying to friends - you realize he didnt mention Constellation or Orion or Ares or the Moon or Mars...

"Speed the development of Shuttle's successor..."
"More broadly we need a real vision..."

Neither of these say anything about Constellation or Ares or Orion, in fact they pretty much imply he did not support Constellation. However, the people listened to the words they wanted to hear and not the complete message.

A comparison to Hitler is indeed in very poor taste. However, a comparison to Jimmy Carter would be good here.
Didn't Carter try to derail the Space Shuttle?

If a space layman like me is angry I cannot imagine the rage these scientist and construction personnel feel. It must feel like a compete betrayal.
The only worse feeling would be something like a divorce.

I have always supported the development of commercial crew transport, but not at the expense of the Vision for Space Exploration. While I believe the people running these companies are dedicated to the expansion of space exploration, I view with a high degree of suspicion the motives of the Obama Administration with regards to the expansion of human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit.

While I wish these companies all success in developing commercial crew transport, I do not believe that they will be able to lower operational costs by the orders of magnitude they claim. That is unless they've developed new laws of physics, to go along with "new business models". In any event, the administration has left us with little oxygen and no good options, so commercial is all we've got. Good luck, you guys are going to need it.

One piece of advice though. Did you ever consider that they did this to move the national flag off the project. Then, if you want to strangle the whole project at a later date, you're not killing AMERICA'S SPACE PROGRAM, you're just reprioritizing funds away from Lockheed or Space X. How many times have we seen that done before? If I were you guys, I'd keep a rheumy eye on my new best friends in the administration.

Keith, thanks for not posting the YouTube link. Humorous or not, even vague references are distasteful at best, so I agree with you. Besides, if people aren't able to use that thing called, um, Google, then that's their own problem.

To all the employees and contractors and NASA huggers who are so surprised and shocked by this decision, I have to wonder why you weren't actually expecting to have this program taken away from you.

Much has been made of Norm Augustine's statement that the program was well managed. But it is not Norm's M.O. to trash talk, so he wasn't going to say anything disparaging. But let's look at some evidence.

Consider the evolution of NASA's costs and cost estimates for Constellation, or at least for the Ares and Orion specifically. The ESAS estimates, which one can find online but that I am trying to quote from memory, said that the the Ares I would cost about $4-6 billion, and the Orion would cost about $6 billion.

According to data NASA provided to the Augustine committee at one of the public session -- NASA's own data, just so we're clear -- the PMR09 costs for Ares and Orion were $12.4 and $12.1 billion, respectively. That's a 100% cost growth. Further, NASA's own data said that the operating costs for Ares/Orion would be $1 billion per flight! Ares I was limping along to CDR, Orion was struggling to get past PDR, and the Constellation Program had not yet reached its PDR milestone. So what do we know - we know that as the Ares and Orion projects actually get to CDR there will be additional cost growth, and as the Program itself starts to tackle the integration challenges and moves to Program CDR, there will be yet even more cost growth.

And, by the way, don't pull any of this "Constellation was never fully funded" crap. Look at the budgets proposed for Ares I and Orion year after year, from the FY 2007 budget (the first post-ESAS budget) to the FY 2010 budget. They are all on the web. Ares and Orion, year after year, had as much budget as they requested if not more -- even though the agency had to live through 2 Continuing Resolutions. Norm Augustine said in answering questions at either the House or the Senate hearings, that when it came to funding, Constellation actually got all the funding it needed in the near years!

Lastly, go re-read the space news article from either last week or the week before that has a NASA official from HQ quoted as saying something to the effect of - "we knew the program was more expensive than we were saying, but we were hoping to get more money."

So -- massive cost growth from ESAS to PMR09 (100%), with more to come for sure and a strategy to intentionally "hope" for more money when you know the program was more expensive than you were saying publicly.

Exactly how can anyone expect that program to continue. NASA has spent about $9 billion on Constellation by most popular estimates on blogs and in the media. The Augustine Committee estimated that to achieve a lunar landing it would cost a total of $145-$159 billion, depending on the end date of the ISS. Why, why, why - why, after being only about 6% of the way thru in terms of costs, would anyone go on to spend the remaining 94% on a program with such a stellar record of staying on cost and on schedule?

NASA is broken. Now everyone knows it. Get over yourselves.

From now on when someone mentions this I should just say "wait for the architectural review before snapping to conclusions."

I am a major manned Mars advocate, I believe in humans on Mars in my lifetime. If I'm not freaked out about the new direction for NASA that should tell you something (assuming 1) your job isn't on the line or 2) you are also a manned non-LEO space advocate). I can understand contractors who may be losing a job and I sympathize with you. Bolden wants you to work on other stuff though, and not to abandon manned spaceflight technology over this small thing.

The reason I'm not freaked out? Many impressive names in the field are for this budget, and some of the bigger names are Mars advocates. If they don't see this hurting Mars, and if I can see no reason within the proposed budget to be freaked out about Mars, then I'm fine with it. Commercialize getting out of the atmosphere, develop technologies to get from here to to far beyond LEO quickly.

After all, that is part of NASAs mission statement:

To improve life here, To extend life to there, To find life beyond.

Cx failed in that regard. Sorry that it bites for some of you to hear this said again, but it is true.

Les
1. This isn't at the expense of the Vision for Space Exploration - Constellation was at the expense of the VSE

2. Its not physics that dictate the operating costs of spaceflight - its the operational process. And the operational process of Constellation, and shuttle, left a lot to be desired.

"Yes HSF is more important than the government nationalizing 1/7 of the nation's economy by seizing the health care industry."

Ah, an echo of the endless shrieking hysterics about Obama's non-existent "socialist" agenda.

And that distraction is why you will fail... because you are starting from a false premise, lashing out at the Obama you've been led to believe in, and are ignoring the Obama that actually exists.

Obama's plan, the one he carefully crafted and herded through the senate, did the exact opposite of nationalizing health care: it would been a giveaway to the corporations worth billions (and eventually trillions) by forcing Americans to buy the products of a failed health insurance system at gunpoint. And since the IRS was to be the bill collector for the corporations the phrase "at gunpoint" is meant literally.

The facts are there in the bill... why is it so hard to call Obama what he is: a corporate tool? Or is it just so easy to call him something you heard on Fox News?

Side note: "corporate" in this context does not really refer to any of the aerospace corps... not even the big ones. It instead refers to the "masters of the universe" types where being worth millions might get you a polite time of day but sure as hell won't get you in the door.

Frankly, the reaction of the Constellation crowd if anything shows why the program had to be cancelled. "Orion is dead, we're not going back to the Moon, our only decent manned launcher, Ares 1, can't be cancelled." The degree of their delusion is simply unbelievable.

Orion is not dead. It will live on as the Boeing/Bigelow capsule: it will now seat seven, have a few less windows, a toilet, and no buggy springs for seats. First iteration will be for LEO only; if NASA reqs call for a version for hyperbolic past LEO entry, they'll make that too. Nothing has been lost when it comes to Orion, and I imagine they'll make it a damn sight cheaper than the one Constellation called for.

We have not stopped our effort to go to the Moon. Bolden addressed this earlier in the week at the Tuesday press conference. The Moon was simply ordered on down by Bush with no national discussion or debate; well, many Americans would rather see a different first goal, as they fear that if a Moon base were run as well as the Constellation program was, not only wouldn't there be any money left for any other goals in space, but we wouldn't even be able to keep the base running more than a few years.

Bolden wants the nation to have some input into our next destination in space. The young in America want footsteps in a brand new frontier: Mars. Well, we're going to have that debate. We need to do this as a people.

Finally, if the Ares I project had been run competently, Constellation wouldn't be on the chopping block today. Griffin and his management staff have only themselves to blame. The Constellation crowd says the Russians and the Chinese are laughing at us; the truth is that they've been laughing at us for five years, putting all our LEO eggs on top of an underpowered roman candle. Ares I would have taken seven more years to finish, and that's assuming there weren't any more show-stoppers. The program has been a disgrace and the final product unacceptable.

It's time for you guys to take your lumps and move on. Your lip and whining is a disgrace to this country, and your attitudes would have never been tolerated back in the Apollo program where many, many ideas and projects were shot down without ego. It's time to quit the tea-baggingt and get behind your President and Administrator -- if you can't, then resign.

This small thing?

The estimates I have seen - 12,000 job losses in Florida, 3000 to 5000 in Houston and 2000 at MSFC.

How exactly to you deem this a small thing.

A small thing is the estimated 1,700 jobs that will somehow be created in Florida under the new plan at some nebulous time in the future.

In Houston, extending ISS will not create jobs, it will extend some jobs - but other than that, there will be no new jobs in Houston for years to come, under this new "plan".

Spaceboy, I'll agree with you that saying "the money isn't there" was a poor choice of words. It would be better to say that the political will to spend the money on space isn't there. We're too busy spending money on other misguided goals that are politically expedient, and this isn't new or unique to this administration or congress. Ideally, NASA's budget would be double what it is. We'd have a space program that could satisfy our goals both in and out of LEO (yes a shuttle-type system, a crew launch system, and a heavy-lift launch system). We'd be able to continue operations in low-Earth orbit AND travel to the moon or Mars. Maybe one day the will for this will exist. It isn't there today and hasn't been there since the 60's (when it was there for the wrong reasons). However, none of this means that Obama is a liar who is trying to destroy NASA completely. If he wanted to do that, there'd be no need to propose any increase in NASA's budget at all. It's worth mentioning that Bush himself was hardly a strong supporter of Cx, barely recommending enough money to keep the project moving, and rarely if ever discussing the Vision for Space Exploration after he first announced it.

Additionally, focusing solely on the dollar aspect of this doesn't tell the whole story. If you are an engineer working within Constellation (I am and maybe you are?), you'd know that the overall architecture has many technical problems that go beyond money, not the least of which is that the lunar architecture was extremely unlikely to close in its current form. With regard to Orion being canceled, I think (admittedly speculation) that Bolden canceled all of Constellation to make a clean break and allow for easier restructuring of sub-programs and all levels of management. Orion will be resurrected under a different name and redirected for compatibility with appropriate commercial launch vehicles. It will become to crewed capsules what Space Station Freedom became to ISS. Aspects of Ares V, and even the current Lunar Lander and Lunar Surface Systems programs will also likely be resurrected in alternate forms with a longer-term horizon. Only time will tell however.

I don't feel Bolden is a heartless man. He believes that with aerospace unemployment rate at 3-5% and with the new demand created by all the start-ups, most people will land on their feet. How many jobs Florida loses will be greatly determined by how many start-ups begin there after the lay-offs. Most people looking for easy jobs will likely have to leave the state. The ones with fire in their bellies will stay, create their own Space Company, and help America build our future in space.

The ultimate beauty of Obama's plan is since there really is no plan, people can imagine it to be almost anything that they dream of. And thanks to the politicians, NASA has been pretty much dreaming about the future since the end of the Apollo era. And it looks like during the Obama era we're going to continue that grand post Apollo tradition.

Marcel F. Williams

"It's time to quit the tea-baggingt and get behind your President and Administrator -- if you can't, then resign."

Disgusting comment.
This has nothing to do with a political movement!

Citizens have a RIGHT TO DISAGREE!

That does not mean not doing your job!

SHAME!

The majority of the jobs that will be lost are a result of the end of the space shuttle program which was going to happen with the old plan. The new plan requests a $1B increase. As Bolden indicated on Tuesday, it is reasonable to assume that this will not translate into a net jobs loss, even at JSC... while KSC probably won't see any improvement over the old plan, it should not be a significant change from the old plan.

""Some things the nation does are too important to be left solely to the vagaries of the marketplace. Human spaceflight is one of them."
— Michael Griffin, NASA administrator 2005-2009"

I love it when conservatives talk like liberals.

I agree with Keith, calm down people! This is all political, what else did you expect? Acting like a bunch of teabaggers is unprofessional.

There are no death panels, and NASA isn't going away.

I have seen this Hitler video. It is TRULY funny and in the same style as Conan O'Brien's. As the Space Center we are trying hard to laugh because crying just hurts too much right now. However, I think Keith is using good judgment because the Hitler reference is offensive to German's. I know because my brother sponsored a German exchange student for a year. They do not like it.

Having said that, on another note, I submitted this letter to the Florida Today editorial last night: Having worked Config Mgt for Solid Rocket Boosters on Constellation you will deal with speculation and questioning until you reach the final goal (Ares 1-X). Then, you compile all the data and use it as a data point. I believe the "Save Conselletaion" video now on YouTube nailed it all dead on. "A non-doer is very often a critic-that is, someone who sits back and watches doers, and then waxes philosophically about how the doers are doing. It's easy to be a critic, but being a doer requires effort, risk, and change." Dr Dyer

If the *new* NASA message is not getting through either: I'm seeing a lot of evidence the messengers are being shot at, more than the message itself! I read over the last couple years complaints that the 'message' about Constellation wasn't getting through effectively. Now that there is a substantially different program and message being offered, we're STILL seeing evidence the message is not working?!

The Griffin regime was sometimes characterised as being a near-perfect "Emporer's New Clothes" denial syndrome at work. Could it be that because there seems to be more nebulous, undefined goals in the new message, some are seeing a new 'Emporer' but for different reasons?! Don't worry - there's a lot of confusion and dissapointment to go round, it seems. Sigh. 5 years ago I thought there was a fighting chance I'd see humans walk on Mars in my lifetime. Now, I'm nearly certain I wont, and I'm only 45... :(

One of the not so very secrets about NASA is that in a real sense there are two NASAs WRT space. One is the operations NASA, shuttle and ISS. The other is the science NASA, Hubble, Pathfinder, etc. I was employed at NASA MSFC years ago, and was surprised at the genuine hostility of many of the scientists toward manned operations. They regarded it as basically a stunt, and/or contributing to the evil military, and wished it would go away so the money could be spent on the important things. IE, their own research. In a way, it looks as if they have gotten their wish.

A sad time to be working for NASA. For the first time in my career, I am embarrassed to say I am a NASA engineer. We thought Constellation was going to be great new program. But politics not physics brought it down. Decisions made in Washington lead to the selection of inappropriate hardware and constant end fighting by the big military/aerospace contractors and many self proclaimed space experts further doomed it. Based on the way NASA has to operate and the realities of politics, it is probably best to turn human space flight over to the military and be done with NASA. Kill it, before even the name of NASA is synonymous with failure and government waste.

> dont give me this B.S. that the government can give billions of dollars to every tom, dick and jane, but when it comes to NASA - wait! we cant afford it!

Your public representatives are elected by their constituents and roughly reflect those desires, so if you think NASA has been underfunded for 40 years then you better talk to your neighbors. And you're a little late

> As for the increased budget, it is a myth. Take a look at the Exploration Budget 5 year plan in 2009, 2010 and 2011 - the budget has been cut drastically.

Proposed exploration budget from http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_%20Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf (in millions of dollars)

2009: 3,505.5
2010: 3,779.8
2011: 4,263.4
2012: 4,577.4
2013: 4,718.9
2014: 4,923.3
2015: 5,179.3

> If the so called private sector says they can do it and they can do it cheaper, faster and better than NASA and it's Prime Contractors on Constellation - Knock yourselves out! No one is stopping you!

Actually NASA is stopping them. Normal companies don't try to compete when the competition is billion-dollar government subsidized. It's kind of a disadvantage. When this happens between two countries that believe in free trade it is called a trade dispute and people get very angry about it

> Why do all these other companies need $6 billion from NASA [over 5 years] to create "private" and "commercial" space?

Well nobody knows if or how much those companies need. The point is NASA wants some results and is willing to pay for it. NASA took a guess at how much it would cost.

While you're on the topic, you can think about why NASA needs more than that to not succeed at government space.

You have to think realistically about those layoff numbers. 30% of those are dead woods that have been waiting to retire until the program ends.

hey folks, when the KSC crowd expresses "Obama lied", they're referring to his campaign promise that he would ensure that no Shuttle workers would (7000+) would lose their jobs when Shuttle retired.

He stated that in Brevard County, they've got it on tape. He did NOT say "attempt to minimize the job losses", he DID say "no job losses". None means None.

A small fraction of the 7000+ KSC shuttle workforce were counting on CxP for future employment -bad as most of them already knew the CxP program was.

But the overwhelming majority of the Shuttle workforce were counting on Obama (& Nelson & Kosmas & Bolden) to follow thru with Obama's promise and implement whatever the new grand plan for retaining the entire KSC Shuttle workforce was going to be.

That's where the perception that "Obama lied" comes from. And I'd say Obama's advisors in DC have apparently given him some severely poor advice.

Or they just don't care about Florida elections any longer.

CxP cancellation won't affect Florida elections much, it's the 7000+ Shuttle workers with no jobs after shutdown that will affect the Florida elections.

If this were the world of I Dream of Jeanie, Nasa Astronaut Tony Nelson could get his genie wife to magically concoct some fantastic private space craft. I use this analogy because Obama plan borders on the magical without any grounding in reality. Even the writers of I Dream of Jeanie (probably all dead now) could devise a more rational space plan.
The Gemini program that ran the same time of this sitcom is certainly better than anything the private industry is offering right now. Are we going to have to wait every 10 to 12 months for another SpaceX launch, that already has a 60% failure rate!!

I agree with Critics on this forum in that the people running NASA today have to be out of their minds.

"Obama didn't lie"

Well, according to politifact.com,

Promise #333
expedite the development of the Shuttle's successor systems for carrying Americans to space so we can minimize the gap

Promise #339
endorse the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020

Canceling Orion does not reduce the gap after the shuttle. Obama has stated that he is canceling missions to the Moon.

So yes, Obama did lie.

Mismanagement in the X-33 Shuttle successor program resulted in the subsequent end of the program.

Mismanagement in the Space Shuttle Program resulted in the loss of the STS-107 vehicle and crew, and the subsequent end of the program.

Mismanagement in the Constellation Program resulted in an inadequate launch vehicle design and the subsequent end of the program.

NASA program management. Would you give them your money? You are, you know.

I'm a KSC NASA Engineer. I support the cancellation of ARES I and V. Having 2 launchers was going to cost a fortune in operations and maintenance especially if they use SRB's because of what they do to the pad. I thought ARES I was a good idea when it was first proposed as a 4 segment SRB and an SSME powered upper stage. But once it became a brand new rocket and Orion started having safety systems removed it was time to backup and re-evaluate the situation.

I am still under some delusion that we will get a heavy lift vehicle. If we go shuttle derived the J-130 would be a good start because at least we would have LEO access. This can be used as a test vehicle for the Heavy Lift. Then as commercials come online stop flying the J-130.

Also I think commercial is the way to go in the long run. I do have a HUGE problem giving these companies any funding except for successful launches. The NASA should do a reverse auction for launch services for crew and cargo. Then let private investors and the market decide which ideas will have the best success. That is the way to use the market to your advantage. You will get much more money invested in research then if they are all on the NASA dole. If NASA picks winners to give money to for R&D it messes up the market mechanisms because the companies are now more interested in getting grants than building a real launcher.

JMHO

Well "zapkitty" I'd been wondering where you've been. It's nice to see that you've put down the kool-aid long enough to post.

Thanks for another "staw man" argument but no one has been distracted in this debate about HSF "Obama Style" except "possum" to which I responded. It's interesting that you accuse me of being distracted and then launch into a big 4+ paragraph post defending Obama and his healthcare plan.

Nice try to draw me into the fray. Obama's plan of Bold, Exciting and New along with his supporters telling us that it's Faster, Better and Cheaper is just more of the same tripe from politicians and engineer wannabes that have no clue. Good day, sir.

Obama has nobody to blame but himself. He could have been the next JFK, but instead chose to be the next Jimmy Carter. After the failed health care push and a now ruined space program, the Obama legacy will almost certainly be worse than Bush’s. Is that possible??!! In this administration anything negative is possible. At least with Bush we had no expectations.

I view the Obama administration entirely negative this past year. They will also find a way to screw up high speed rail in this country as well.

The loss of human space flight is too complicated to blame on any one individual. Many are at fault (Obama, Bush, Griffin, O’Keefe, Dittemore, Hanley, Shannon, etc.). But if I had to pick the moment when everything started to go south very quickly, it would be the Columbia accident. That was when it became apparent that NASA management had (again) become complacent and too easily accepted unacceptable risks. And that was when the public started to wonder if the risk of sending people into space was worth the benefit and the cost.

I don’t think human space flight ever recovered after Columbia. Constellation was created, but it had so many problems from the very beginning, to include an egotistical administrator who could not admit that his cocktail napkin design wouldn’t work, despite throwing huge sums of money at it. And then there was Shuttle management who refused to accept the CAIB mandate, and played every political card that was available to keep its empire alive. Titians collided, and manned space flight lost.

If privatizing is so great.....

Why haven't they surpassed NASA a long time ago?

Because the level of faith, and that is the word to use some of you have in commercial endeavors is disturbing. The quarterly report rules, shareholders, profit margins. Strategically positioning America on the space frontier isn't part of the mission statement folks. Ic can serve that to a degree, yes of course! But they do not exist to position America as the leading nation on the space frontier like NASA, they exist for other reasons entriely.

So I ask again...

Where is the commercial moonbase today?
They should have beaten NASA years ago if the NASA solutions suck so much.

READ>>>>

Privatization NEEDS a NASA that *leads* on the frontiers to succeed.

Dumping NASA and handing it over (still way UNDERFUNDED by the way) to entrenpreneurs (who will literally promise the moon right now) will fail because it is only a portion of the equation!

The both work together. They always have, but both have important roles the other cannot do.

It's just that simple.

And that is why when we see one leg hacked of by Obama, we know he could care less about long term national success in space meeting those important moon and Mars goals.

Trying to put a manned space craft on top of brand new solid rocket booster was simply an unnecessary technological and financial risk for NASA right from the start.

The Jupiter HLV is the only logical step right now along with continuing to develop the Orion-- which is a vehicle that should also be attractive to the emerging private space flight industry.

But there is a huge flaw in the theory that NASA should help to sustain private space launch companies by allowing them to transport NASA astronauts to the ISS. The fact is that there's simply not enough American manned space flight traffic to the ISS to sustain more than one company! And it still might be cheaper for tax payers to fly Americans aboard an Energia space craft than from an American company.

Marcel F. Williams

Has anyone seen documentation as to exactly why SSME airstart was unworkable? It seems to me that was the decision that sent Aries 1 (and therefore Cx) into its death spiral. One would have thought that the "engineer's engineer" would have verified this little detail before dictating that the Scotty Rocket be built.

I still say this was part of a very carefully orchestrated plan. Politicians always appoint blue ribbon commissions when they're up to skullduggery. So, the administration right off the bat formed the Augustine Commission, but they very carefully limited their parameters of investigation, to make sure they would get a carefully defined set of answers. They chopped Michael Griffin off off at the knees (some would say because he was grossly incompetent), but some might also say because they wanted somebody a little more compliant, who wouldn't kick up a fuss when they began to "violate" human space flight. Then they appointed General Bolden the NASA administrator, but pleae remember he had to be force fed to them by the Senator from Florida. But, not to worry, they made sure he had a minder from the Politbureau...Dr. Garver. The Borgia's would be proud. Then there was delay, and delay, and delay and more delay to let their victim bleed a little. Then, do they choose to adequately fund the program of record? No. Do they choose any of the options the Augustine Commission gave them for any kind of a real human space flight program? No! Instead, take the knees off of everybody, remove the flag from the whole process, so that it would be easier to liquidate later, and come out with a glitzy new narrative of a program that is high on adjectives but low on goals, specifics and money.

And some of you guys still think this is about launching a new and bold vision for the future. That kind of naïveté leaves me breathless. When you want to do that, you do it from the bully pulpit, and with a ton of fanfare, and with a real infusion of cash. If you're really interested in changing the paradyme, you do it in a big way to bring the American People and Congress along with you. You go out to the Centers and engage the troops, and attempt to coopt them into your vision. He's had plenty of time to go make nice with every tin-pot dictator on the planet this year. What you don't do is put it in a memo, or a couple lines in the budget. Did anyone get a look at that character from OMB? I listen to his testimony. In the voice of an Iowa undertaker, he sounds like he's on fire for human space flight!

I don't understand Gen. Bolden though. I have a ton of respect for anyone who has the intelligence, courage and dedication of purpose to serve his country in combat, earn astronaut wings and get to view the world from 300 miles up. What I don't understand, is why that Marine remains part of this travesty. I'd make such a stink they'd be popping Renuzit's all over Washington. I would love to know if he knew this was going to be the end point of this little trajedy when he accepted the job. This is very sad.

"... then launch into a big 4+ paragraph post defending Obama and his healthcare plan."

Uh... defending?

Okay. That's pretty much all for that subject...

Below are the last 4 budget estimates. Exploration decreases by about $100 million FY11 vs FY10, but there's a new item, "Space Technology", funded at $572 million, which increases to ~$1 billion in FY12. Kind of looks like "Advanced Capabilities" has been moved out of Exploration to become Space Technology and given a budget increase. Compared to the last "old plan" budget estimate, it appears that HSF beyond LEO has taken about a $500M hit in FY11, but that difference decreases to about $100M-$200M per year in FY12-FY15. So there has been no huge change...

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168652main_NASA_FY08_Budget_Request.pdf
FY08 Budget Estimates (Bush/Griffin):
            FY 2008  FY 2009  FY 2010  FY 2011  FY 2012
Exploration 3,923.8  4,312.8  4,757.8  8,725.2  9,076.8
NASA TOTAL  17,309.4 17,614.2 18,026.3 18,460.4 18,905.0

FY09 Budget Estimates (Bush/Griffin):
            FY 2008  FY 2009  FY 2010  FY 2011  FY 2012
Exploration 3,143.1  3,500.5  3,737.7  7,048.2  7,116.8 
NASA TOTAL  17,309.4 17,614.2 18,026.3 18,460.4 18,905.0

FY10 Budget Estimates (Obama/Scolese):
            FY 2008  FY 2009  FY 2010  FY 2011  FY 2012
Exploration 3,299.4  3,505.5  3,963.1  6,076.6  6,028.5
                               +400.0 (recovery act)
NASA TOTAL  17,401.9 17,782.4 18,686.0 18,631.0 18,613.0
                              +1,002.0 (recovery act)

FY11 Budget Estimates (Obama/Bolden):
            FY 2008  FY 2009  FY 2010  FY 2011  FY 2012
Space Technology                       572.2    1,012.2
Exploration          3,505.5  3,779.8  4,263.4  4,577.4
                               +400.0 (recovery act)
NASA TOTAL           17,782. 18,724.3  19,000.0 19,450.0
                             +1,002.0 (recovery act)

From what I've read it wasn't the air start, although that in and of itself was a tough cookie as most of the SSME startup gear is actually massive and bulky ground support equipment that's built into the launch pad.

It takes some serious cranking amps to get those engines up to speed where the onboard turbopumps can keep going on their own but it is theoretically possible to do in flight.

But then it turned out that the SSME needed to be restarted in flight as part of the optimal flight profile... and that's the straw that broke the camel's back.

> It seems to me that was the decision that sent Aries 1 (and therefore Cx) into its death spiral

This is off topic but no, as with any complex system failure there are many reasons. Too many to characterize without Augustine 7: Constellation Explanation. More on the SSME (which is prohibitively expensive):

‘We switched to the 4 segment with SSME at the last minute to enable flying in 2011, which is no longer an option in the budget,'

'Once the schedule slipped to 2012, the 5 segment CLV with J-2S becomes the preferred approach'

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/esas-originally-favoured-5-seg-srb/

@areo speedwagon

Nice try, even the way you posted the numbers dont make sense. First of all the 2008 plan calls for $8.725 billion for Exploration. The 2011 budget calls for $4.263 billion, so precisely how is this not a decrease?

It may have helped if you showed what was in the 5 year budget plans, for example, why are there numbers in 2008 and 2009 for the 2010 budget? Try this little table I posted the other day instead:

_____|___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

I did not pull the numbers for 2008 when I did this, but you provided them above.

So again, I state show me the increase. Also, I do not place the blame soley on the current admin. I blame the previous administration and COngress along with the current Administration and congress.

"More on the SSME (which is prohibitively expensive)"

... when ordered in small lots with a mandate to refurbish that does not save money but does add many expensive worker hours to the SSME bill.

The timeline where the SSMEs were treated as disposable and ordered in bulk until the actual disposable SSME units came on line closed the financial case... when the "Ares I + Ares V" logjam was out of the picture.

@zapkitty: I am surprised to hear that "there is massive and bulky" GSE "built into the launch pad" for the SSME. I am pretty sure the SSMEs start with just head pressure from the ET and their built in augmented spark ignitors. There is no electrical "cranking" equipment to spin the pumps or anything. The SSME bootstraps itself in a very complex and beautiful sequence. There is some purge gas from the GSE, I believe, and the sparklers to burn off excess H2 are on the pad. This self starting nature is why I was surprised the airstart was such a big deal.

Constellation was even more fatally broken in time line than it was in budget. Under the budget that Obama inherited, as assessed by the Augustine committee, the plan was this:

1. ISS deorbited ~2015-2016
2. Ares I begins operation ~2017, but has nowhere to go or do (see item 1), so there is no reason to actually launch it at $1 billion per flight
3. Ares V begins operation in the late 2020's, but has no payload, so there is still no reason to launch either Ares I or Ares V
4. Lunar landing payloads are developed some time in the 2030's, if ever

The true U.S. human spaceflight gap under this plan is not several years, it is over two decades. Some time in those two decades, a disgusted President and Congress would pull the plug on Constellation and perhaps all of NASA space exploration. Who could blame them?

This is happening under Obama and thus he will get the blame in the history books. What an awful legacy to have.

Spaceboy wrote: "Nice try, even the way you posted the numbers dont make sense. First of all the 2008 plan calls for $8.725 billion for Exploration. The 2011 budget calls for $4.263 billion, so precisely how is this not a decrease? It may have helped if you showed what was in the 5 year budget plans, for example, why are there numbers in 2008 and 2009 for the 2010 budget?"

Not sure why it doesn't make sense. And it would have helped if you had included the Space Technology budget in your table. These are all budget estimates covering a span of 5 years, and that's why they show numbers for future years, but you knew that so I'm not sure what the confusion is. I simply chose the five year period originally covered in the FY08 budget for the comparison. I never claimed there wasn't a decrease. In general over the last four years there has been a steady decrease in actual and estimated budget for next generation HSF in a given year (although this is not the case for FY10 due to the recovery act). The primary point was that between the last "old plan" estimated budgets, and the current "new plan" estimated budgets, the decrease is not huge: ~$500M in FY11 and ~$100M-$200M beyond that.... which is what I said in my last post...

@Areo

Sorry, my confusion comes in because your 2009 budget requests shows values for 2008 and your 2009 request shows numbers for 2008 and 2009.

What I am showing is the budget allocated to Exploration under all three budegts and there is a significant decline.

Even if I include the Space Technology budget in there, it is still more than $2.2 billion less than the budget requested in 2009 for 2011. I wont even get into the excessively vague goals of the Space Technology budget. Since it just spews more "game-changing" and "innovative" buzz words with no substance.

Spaceboy wrote: "Sorry, my confusion comes in because your 2009 budget requests shows values for 2008 and your 2009 request shows numbers for 2008 and 2009. [...] Even if I include the Space Technology budget in there, it is still more than $2.2 billion less than the budget requested in 2009 for 2011."

Ah, ok I see what you mean now... I just cut & pasted the lines out of the budget estimate document for each year, and lined up the columns. Not sure why the numbers change for years where they should have actuals, you'd have to ask NASA about that.

And yeah, my bad on FY11, not sure what happened, maybe I was using the FY12 figure. Anyway, for FY11 there was a decrease of $1.2B between the FY10 & FY11 budget estimates, which is large, although actually par for the course. Previous decreases in the FY11 budget estimate going back to FY08 were (rounding) $1.7B and $1.0B. The "old plan" vs "new plan" projected budget decreases for FY12 through FY14 are: $439M, $188M, and $208M, which is better than the historical trend... we'll see what actually happens.

What's the point? Just that "new plan" funding trends are in line with "old plan" trends, and potentially better than the old plan as we go out.

I agree that it's unclear what "Space Technology" encompasses, but the same can be said for "Advanced Capabilities" which was included in the old Exploration line item.

bolt_catcher wondered aloud...

"@zapkitty: I am surprised to hear that "there is massive and bulky" GSE "built into the launch pad" for the SSME."

Yes, the original "green" emergency manual system was judged to have insufficient cold cranking amps...

http://www.los-gatos.ca.us/davidbu/pedgen.html

... and thus was replaced in 1982 with an older but still serviceable automated unit built by Ford:

http://www.edsel.com/pages/airplane.gif

(BTW that image is from a very impressive shuttle documentary of the era.)

It was the weight of this 1958 E unit that caused the real problems for SSME on Ares I... not the need to carry hundreds of kilos of extra non-propulsive N2, He, O2 and H2 and the associated purge gear.

"I am pretty sure the SSMEs start with just head pressure from the ET and their built in augmented spark ignitors."

That series of documentaries had very explicit warnings about the dangers of head pressure.

"There is no electrical "cranking" equipment to spin the pumps or anything."

Correct, the Ford unit was gas-powered and not an electric or a hybrid.

"The SSME bootstraps itself in a very complex and beautiful sequence. There is some purge gas from the GSE, I believe, and the sparklers to burn off excess H2 are on the pad."

... and you whole family can see all this when you attend Holiday On Ice!

BTW... the book says that the O2 and H2 tanks get a little "head" start from GSE by being pressurized to 21 psia and 42.5 psia respectively...

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-mps.html

... so unless that prelaunch surge was expected to hold through SRB sep...

And also BTW... about duplicating the effect of those purge gas ignition "sparklers", actually heated metal pellets, at mach infinity at umpty-thousand feet in an enclosed interstage?

"This self starting nature is why I was surprised the airstart was such a big deal."

As I said the airstart was a very big deal but was considered technically feasible... if you didn't mind how many engine test rigs you blew out learning the new purge and start curves for the new in-flight parameters of an already tight temperature/pressure "start box" and also didn't mind hauling aloft several hundred kilos of GSE and purge gases to boot.

No, what I've read and heard was that it was the additional need to restart the SSME after MECO that rendered the SSME unusable for the Ares upper stages.

And once the SSME was replaced by the J-2X the performance losses snowballed downhill... again.

(Rumor had it that towards the end an Ares V first stage with 7 RS-68 engines was being considered...)

All true left and right but someone please answer the million dollar question. What are we going to do to replace Heavy Lifted Manned capability to compete in science and defense?? "Research and Study" is not going to get us there as we all know. Those are code words for "kill the program." Why? because you have a target and a mission otherwise you might as well be an academician doing science studies. I guess we've been told by the Chinese to stand down while they take the lead is all I can figure. Otherwise they will call our debt.

If you want to hear an established critic of Obama's space policy here is Michio Kaku. He is a theoretical physicist specializing in string theory, and is also a popularizer of science in much the same way Carl Sagan was. You may remember him from the History channel show the universe.

Nobody here would win an argument with this guy. When the nations best minds trash Obama's space plan be very afraid. I simply have to put this link up to win my argument every time.

Here is a link to Kaku interview on television.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/01/29/video-michio-kaku-rips-nasa-plan/