This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
SLS and Orion

Does SLS Threaten JSC?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 23, 2012
Filed under , , ,

Space Launch System is a threat to JSC, Texas jobs, Chris Kraft and Tom Moser, Houston Chronicle
“SLS is killing JSC. SLS is killing Texas jobs. SLS is killing our national space agenda. We are wasting billions of dollars per year on SLS. There are cheaper and nearer term approaches for human space exploration that use existing launch vehicles. A multicenter NASA team has completed a study on how we can return humans to the surface of the moon in the next decade with existing launch vehicles and within the existing budget. This NASA plan, which NASA leadership is trying to hide, would save JSC and create thousands of jobs in Texas. It is time for Texas’ elected members of Congress to wake up and do something about it before it is too late.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

79 responses to “Does SLS Threaten JSC?”

  1. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    Suppressed reports that help one side in an argument have a tendency to get leaked to the press.  If someone intends to leak make sure that it cannot be traced back – remove copy number and distribution lists.

  2. no one of consequence says:
    0
    0

    The old guard has finally awoken. “We’ve analyzed their attack, sir, and there is a danger”.

    Ironic considering JSC engineer’s anti-“commercial” pro-SLS mindset. Apparently the attraction to do a mindless rant overwhelms the mindful self-preservation act of thinking through the consequences.

    Kraft gets consequences.

  3. SgtBeavis says:
    0
    0

    Senator Hutchinson isn’t gonna like this one…

    • TerryG says:
      0
      0

      If she does anything at all, it’ll be a further attempt to raise more $ for $L$ by doubling down on strangling Commercial Space in it’s crib – even though some in the Commercial Space sector are planning a Texas launch complex and also test their rockets in her home state.

  4. Space_Truckin says:
    0
    0

    Oh jeez… some of the “JSC *IS* NASA!” crowd rears its ugly head.

    Hey Chris, you obviously haven’t noticed, but one of the main problems the Agency is trying to correct is the lack of technical development skills – brought on by years and years of waaaay too much emphasis on, and influence by, operations types.  2500 people recently doing Shuttle and Station operations!?!  THAT is the problem!

    It’s about time to let the engineers at LaRC, GRC, MSFC, GSFC, ARC, etc do some real development work and get the agency back to where it should be.

    • Jerry_Browner says:
      0
      0

      Its about time to let the engineers at JSC do some real development work too. Ops killed the engineering functions over the last couple decades of Shuttle. Its time to retrain our people.

      • Space_Truckin says:
        0
        0

        I agree!  Its definitely time to retrain-

        • frosty says:
          0
          0

          I agree with you, most of the design engineers here at KSC are young kids, and they do a bang up job, I personally try to push for new cutting edge stuff wherever I can, but then you run into that one ops guy thats been working the shuttle (random operation here) for the last thirty years and you are screwed. No matter how you try to explain that the new system has different demands somehow they are absolutely sure the old system can do it.
          I believe retraining is useless, to be beneficial you would have to alter the ops attitude and change the way these people think – which is nearly impossible to do. Ops believe they are gods and the rest of us are here to lick their boots.

      • chriswilson68 says:
        0
        0

        Ops and engineering are different skill sets.  If we want to switch from an ops-driven organization to an engineering-driven organization, it’s crazy to say we’re going to take our ops organization and retrain everyone for engineering.

        If you really want to do engineering in-house at JSC, the only effective way to do it is by firing the entire ops organization and hiring a new organization that can do engineering.

        • frosty says:
          0
          0

          if JSC is anything like KSC (most likely) then all the ops luddites need to be retired and alow the engineer design types to take over and move this thing (SLS) along; Constellation wasn’t killed by the pres, or congress, or anything else; it was killed by ops wanting to reuse everything Shuttle because that is all they understand which ended up costing 3 times as much as projected and schedule stretched to 5 times as long; and I am speaking from experience; I have a feeling that SLS is heading the same way

          • Space_Truckin says:
            0
            0

            I wonder what is driving your “feeling”?  I’ve met with SLS folks a number of times and have seen their reviews firsthand and they definitely do NOT have a ops/”do it like Shuttle” mindset.  Far from it!  Although willing to listen to the lessons learned from past programs, they seem very intent on trying their best to do things right.  So far, I am quietly impressed.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Hey, don’t forget the engineers at KSC. Someone has to figure out how to get off the planet without going bankrupt. Wait, it’s too late. Everybody with any real hands-on experience has been fired.

      • Dan says:
        0
        0

        We tried that during Constellation, No one at USA was willing to learn or try new processes, They just wanted to keep doing like they have on Shuttle which was a reactive process and not a proactive process. You wouldnt believe the looks I recieved when in a meeting on life cycle cost for Ares, I stated this is a space program not a Job program you could have heard a pin drop after that statement 

  5. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    This NASA plan, which NASA leadership is trying to hide, would save JSC and create thousands of jobs in Texas

    While I certainly have no love for SLS, I have to ask, in creating “thousands of jobs in Texas,” how many jobs (at any pay grade) will be lost elsewhere? Since their goal is “saving” JSC, this could end up being a case of all of one or all of the other. It would be nice if JSC ended up executing all of these proposed future programs, but not at the cost of other centers and the jobs at them. The article offers no evidence that this trade-off has been addressed.

    Steve

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

      Steve, it’s an op-ed piece not a news article – they expect you to mine your own facts, and don”t want to get caught up in side arguments over said facts being packaged one way or another when they in effect mean the same thing.

      Here’s an attempt at an answer to your concern. How long does JSC put off an operations RIF … as SLS goes further out in time?

      When operations goes, then the other parts that support it also get RIFs. At some point its too expensive to bring back JSC, so you close the center and bring back at another center that didn’t go away … cause its cheaper because less to bring back.

      More complicated is the industry relationships that occur in like kind.

      His true issue is more about the nature of SLS, not SLS itself. As arranged by Congress, it leads to a long slow death. Could (like DIRECT’s Jupiter) avoid this but didn’t.

      • mmeijeri says:
        0
        0

        Could it? Theoretically yes, but Team DIRECT was just as duplicitous and selfish as Team Constellation. Maybe government funded manned spaceflight is like a Ring of Power, it cannot be used for good.

        Look at what this whole thing is doing to seemingly intelligent and reasonable people: it makes them speak outright *lies*: we supposedly “need” an HLV, government-only spacecraft, cryogenic landers, cryogenic depots, lunar ISRU facilities, SBIR grants, prizes, an R&D fest, funding for suborbital companies, J2X, liquid boosters for SLS, 8m+ heat shields, variable mixture ratio thrusters, 300kW tugs etc etc. Supposedly there was a “compromise” and no one should oppose it, SLS/Orion is now the law so no one should oppose it, etc etc.

        The whole thing makes me sick. Sometimes I think it would be better if the NASA HSF centers or maybe even all NASA centers were struck by asteroids or invaded by dragons or something. Let’s burn the whole corrupt pig’s sty down and go home. Government-funded HSF doesn’t deserve to exist.

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          Team DIRECT was just as duplicitous and selfish as Team Constellation.
          I understand. They are all hoist on own petard. Then they blame everyone else for own shortcomings. Can’t stand them either.

          They bent/broke every rule in the book to have their way. Unsurprisingly creating another pink elephant, which is dying a long slow death and taking more in its wake as it goes into that “good, good night”.

          Government-funded HSF doesn’t deserve to exist.
          Understand this sentiment. Even heard it at MSFC during CxP (!) They are just too chicken sh*t to do something like NAUTILUS-X like they should do.

          They resent “commercial” because it takes away from them what they think is a “safe” job they embellish.

      • mmeijeri says:
        0
        0

        At some point its too expensive to bring back JSC, so you close the
        center and bring back at another center that didn’t go away … cause
        its cheaper because less to bring back.

        Do you think there is any likelihood that JSC will go away? I’d find that surprising. MSFC, Michoud and LC-39, yes, but JSC or KSC as a whole?

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

           Yes. Genuine fear. HSF was its raison d’etre.

        • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
          0
          0

           …but JSC or KSC as a whole?

          A site will only be kept if it has a job to do.  Think about the answers to these questions:

           Where is the mission control for the Falcon 9?
           Where is the mission control for the Dragon?
           Where is the mission control for the Antares?
           Where is the mission control for the Cygnus?

           Where is the launch pad for the Antares?
           Why is SpaceX looking for a second launch pad on the East coast?
           Several of the CCDev companies hope to launch on Atlas V.  Which organization owns the launch pad for Atlas V?

           Where will the mission control for manned lunar rovers, Moon base and manned lunar landers be?  And their supply missions?
          Does the location change with the mission’s first launch date?

          • charliexmurphy says:
            0
            0

             Launch vehicles don’t have missions control centers, they use launch control centers and they are always at the launch site.  It has no bearing on the spacecraft control center.

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            At Charliexmurphy

            “…but JSC or KSC as a whole?”

            There were questions covered both sites.

          • charliexmurphy says:
            0
            0

            ?????  Your post has no point.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        NOoC,

        So, if its a news article and you don’t provide a balanced and unbiased story you get lambasted, but if it’s an op-ed it’s OK?  Man, I’m never going to understand how the media works.  I’m going to go back to reading fiction.  At least it contains what’s marked on the package.

        Steve

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          op/ed – “opinion / editorial”

          You and me both desire responsible opinion that is well supported by fact that can be argued as a means to arrive at a sensible conclusion.

          But we live in a world that thinks it is preference “entertainment” for the self-absorbed. Its like facts are chosen like ice cream “chocolate” or “vanilla” – one chooses them (or not) to elicit “feeling” sentiment to justify one’s pseudo-intellect(invented) in an ala carte way. Thoroughly despicable for “rocket science”, which strains everyone’s intellect (today’s case in point – why did DARPA’s hypersonic gliders fail ).

          We need to return to mature discourse and battle with technology not succor obtuse and useless ideologies that divide us without merit and hide the problems we must confront.

          And I’d like to stop explaining the “why” of things as if being some grand apologist. Most I know in aerospace have long been a little whacked in the political side – have accepted it as an “affectation” as long as it didn’t intrude on professionalism. But for the past 30 years this has been increasingly breached.

          Now it is commonplace. Time to yell “foul!”.

  6. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Kraft calls a spade a spade on SLS, but I do not really expect an honest and open debate within the agency. Politics, as usual, trumps space. I am also skeptical about the plan to land on the moon in the next decade and within the existing budget. That was essentially how Constellation was sold. I was disappointed that he barely mentions commercial crew and LEO development.

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

       Politics, as usual, trumps space.
      They never face the consequences.

      … skeptical about the plan to land on the moon in the next decade …
      The only one I’ve encountered was the one by a prospective “new space” company, where I was paid by a potential investor to do an in depth financial analysis / tech due diligence on – a very difficult job to vet. So it can be done – existence proof. But to do so is very narrow to execute, exacting task you can’t accumulate errors/ loss/ waste / misses on … in other words, not ideal for government execution.

      One hint – requires the most reliable to LOI existing LV.

      … he barely mentions commercial crew and LEO development.
      His crowd wants/trusts govt development/launchers.

      Relying on the political side for rational SLS is/was irrational.

    • SkyKing_rocketmail says:
      0
      0

       You must be mistaken, there is no plan to land a man on the moon in a decade. The only plan is for a Zond-like circumlunar flyby.

  7. mmeijeri says:
    0
    0

     A bit late for Kraft to speak up. He blasted Obama when his radical budget request was released and did so without a hint of criticism for Ares and Orion. He is complicit in this mess and he cannot wash his hands of it now.

  8. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    I find it odd that the meat of what Chris is saying is not being discussed here.  The new plan is neither technically or financially sustainable for exactly the reasons that he states.

    Due to the lack of funding, there is no money whatsoever for the development of landers, mission modules, and the other stuff you need to explore either an asteroid or the Moon or Mars.  These are facts.  The SLS will not come on line until probably 2020 and it is only after it is operational that NASA will have the money to build these other items.  So the SLS sits on the ground or is used as an ISS ferry vehicle?  That is absurd.

    There is more than one plan out there to get humans back to the Moon and beyond that do not require a heavy lift launch vehicle.  This is also a fact.  Another fact is that a higher flight rate of existing vehicles, including the Falcon 9, will bring down per unit costs.  If you include SEP’s and lunar resources, we have what we need NOW, to get back to the Moon.

    • mmeijeri says:
      0
      0

      If you include SEP’s and lunar resources, we have what we need NOW, to get back to the Moon.

      And there you too smuggle in two unneeded items: SEP and lunar resources. What we need is a manned capsule, a service module and a lander. No new technology is needed, as should be obvious from the fact that this was first done forty years go.

      Throw in propellant transfer (which has been available since the late seventies, and could have been available much earlier if different choices had been made) and you can start working towards commercial development of space straight away. Then the lunar resources, depots and SEP tugs will follow, at whatever time they start making economic sense.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        And there you too smuggle in two unneeded items: SEP and lunar resources.

        Without at least lunar resources, NO exploration architecture is sustainable. Period.  End of Story.  A SEP is a nice interim technology until we get space nuclear up and running later.

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          Your definition of “exploration” isn’t what policy makers (and K street) use in practice.

          “Sustainable” to SLS prime contractors means the successive production of a Shuttle like thing in consecutive years. Period. End of story.

          Any kind of resource / logistical scheme is under attack in like kind, for the same reasons, by the same groups. All it takes is one success and this gets easier for all as well.

          Some suggest that Boeing’s solar propulsion of comsats to GSO (which reduces risk) may be the beginning of proving SEP tugs …

          Think unmanned.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Some suggest that Boeing’s solar propulsion of comsats to GSO (which reduces risk) may be the beginning of proving SEP tugs …

            This is an interesting example.  I have been involved with this one so have some insights.  Boeing has known about this strategy for a long time.  The problem has always been that it was  too risky to get insurance, and the customer wants his/her bird on orbit quickly, losing six months of life for transit costs a LOT of money.

            Boeing has finally done the systems engineering on this to show how in using a SEP system, it dramatically reduces the cost of a 601HP class spacecraft.  They will take the insurance hit on the first bird or two and probably self insure. 

            The lower cost will prove to be an attractive allure to some customers that will overcome their resistance.  The one thing that we found in our Orbital Recovery efforts that was universal is that the commercial customer is interested if you can show them a concrete savings in cost.

            SEP tugs are viable today.  The problem is that inside OCT after Bobby Braun left, there is no one left to champion them and the contractors are proposing systems that they think the customer wants instead of what the customer needs.  Trust me the proposal evaluators already “knew” what they wanted and anything that did not conform to that idea was rejected.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            A good point. The most expensive elements in HSF are the humans, so leave them out. The next most effective way to save money is not ISRU but reusability, so make each element of the system reusable.

            It’s true that unmanned rovers are a little slow, but so far we’ve never had one with even half the computing power of  a cell phone.

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        Everyone tacks on “things” they need … because it helps a longer term agenda … their long term agenda. With Congress, its building a HLV loaded with oodles of yummy juicy pork for constituents.

        So you work things “backward” – fewest new things,  few things strictly derived (not like “shuttle” derived SDLV which was not really derived but reinvented) from off the shelf, and most from operational, modern, unmodified things.

        So the majority of funds goes to actual missions, and the majority of economic activity is through turning known cost, known results things at a higher rate – which means you get the best volume deal, highest reliability, best improving technology situation.

        After you get minimalist exploration model going, you adapt VSE with competing strategies to “do more” for given budget / risk / reward. In a rational world.

        That is how you end this nonsense, and get on with VSE.

        Martijn, you’re right to focus on the basics alone.

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          Martijn, you’re right to focus on the basics alone.

          If the basics does not include ISRU, it is completely not possible to make progress, that is unless you are willing to throw the price of an aircraft carrier in each mission.  Without ISRU it makes sense to build a heavy lifter.  With it, Heavy lift is an anachronism. 

          I find myself with a growing sense of amazement at an attitude that does not consider off planet resources part of something doable.  The mining industry every day gets closer and closer to what ISRU is as the richer ores are depleted.

          We are working now to develop the demonstrations that will basically shove it down the throats of the naysayers on this subject. 

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

            Matter of definitions / politics / industry. Certain gordian knots people won’t let you untie. I welcome watching the “shove down the throats”. I’ll show up at a moments notice for that.

            Yes we need ISRU. No the politics don’t allow it in HSF.  So how do you deal with this?

            Unmanned ISRU lander on unmanned program not tied to HSF. Economics get better to do this if it is retrievable / reusable. Like from a station. The demo that will make all the difference. Because scaling from that point becomes obvious.

            The mining/energy industry will be the ones that eventually will be the mining industry off planet. Making this happen isn’t easy.

          • mmeijeri says:
            0
            0

            If the basics does not include ISRU, it is completely not possible to
            make progress, that is unless you are willing to throw the price of an
            aircraft carrier in each mission

            For the first few missions that will be necessary anyway.

            Without ISRU it makes sense to build a heavy lifter.

            I disagree. Cheap lift looks like much lower-hanging fruit than ISRU. I’m all for ISRU, just as I am in favour of cryogenic depots and RLVs, but we don’t have to wait for them to make progress. And in the case of RLVs we may have to forge ahead precisely so we may develop them more quickly.

            With it, Heavy lift is an anachronism.

            So, does that mean you will stop shilling for Shuttle-C or J-2X?

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Cheap lift looks like much lower-hanging fruit than ISRU. 

            You are kidding right?

            We have been chasing the will-of-the-wisp of cheap launch for over 22 years now with no discernible progress, the Falcon 9 notwithstanding.  For a small fraction of the cost of a cheap lift ISRU can be implemented on a massive scale.

            So, does that mean you will stop shilling for Shuttle-C or J-2X?

            The Shuttle-C made sense when there was still an STS infrastructure around to support it.  It, nor the infrastructure is there anymore.

            As for the J2-X, absolutely, it is the only good thing that Constellation part 1 wrought.  

          • mmeijeri says:
            0
            0

            You are kidding right?

            No, I’m not kidding but let me clarify. I believe the key to cheap lift is competition and flight rate, none of which we’ve had for the past thirty years of the Shuttle. It is very easy to create a market for (initially storable) propellant in orbit (initially at L1/L2) in support of an exploration program (initially unmanned). It doesn’t really matter what the exploration program does. It could be lunar ISRU precursors, it could be Mars or asteroid sample return, it could be a Jupiter probe.

            I believe we can achieve cheap lift as a side-effect of such a program for less money than it would take to set up an ISRU base. If we had enough money, we could achieve cheap lift as a side effect of building the more ambitious ISRU base, but I don’t think we have that money. I believe it is more likely that starting with a less ambitious unmanned program will reduce launch costs by enough to make an ISRU base affordable. The base itself in turn will lead to another revolutionary reduction in cost for missions to the moon and beyond, doubly ensuring that those missions will happen.

            Also, consider what would happen even if we did succeed in building an ISRU base without cheap lift. It would dramatically reduce the costs of moon missions, but not launch costs. As a result we would likely see a continued government monopoly on manned spaceflight, this time beyond LEO.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            I believe we can achieve cheap lift as a side-effect of such a program for less money than it would take to set up an ISRU base.

            Many have believed this, but there is no evidence that cheap lift is going to happen without a dramatically higher launch demand.  Where is that going to come from?  ISRU.

            Why?

            It costs $10k/kg to get something to orbit today.  To get that same kg to the lunar surface costs $100k.  Thus if I can cut the cost of that $100k to $10k then I stimulate demand for Earth launch.  If I further eliminate the need to send entire systems from the Earth to the Moon via ISRU and instead send parts, computers, high value stuff, I then totally change the complexion of payloads that do fly and reduce their cost by probably 75%. 

             If I cut the cost and the mass per unit of functionality (that is today it costs about $1000/kg for space hardware if not more) to $250, then what I have done is stimulate demand on the ground for hardware up, and due to the nature of the hardware that does fly, it is much more amenable to being packaged in a small volume RLV.  Remember that 80% of the mass in LEO to get to the Moon is fuel, and another 10% is system structural mass.  I just cut 90% of the IMLEO simply by implementing ISRU.

            We cannot afford not to do ISRU if we want to get beyond the pissant state that we are in today.

    • Hallie Wright says:
      0
      0

      Agreed. But what is especially odd is that Chris is not even talking about the meat in his own essay. He’s confusing the real issue with jobs at JSC. Frankly, I think the national space program has to be about a lot more than jobs at JSC, and the jobs that might be taken away from JSC will go somewhere else.

      The real issue is that JSC is about human space flight, and SLS is a hugely expensive and questionable sustainable propulsion system that makes human space flight hardware (other than Orion perhaps) unaffordable. You can only do so much with Orion. It’s not about SLS killing JSC. It’s about SLS killing U.S. human space flight.

    • JJ says:
      0
      0

      … I agree with your facts except the last one.  “A higher flight rate of existing vehicles, including the Falcon 9, will bring down per unit costs”.  Where is the higher flight rate coming from?  The Falcon 9 hasn’t even launch a satellite yet, and you already counting on it and its dubious business model, to launch astronauts?  It can happen, but it also cannot, what then?

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        If there is an exploration architecture using existing vehicles, then by definition the flight rate goes up.

  9. John Kavanagh says:
    0
    0

    Kraft’s argument is a justification to maintain employment levels at JSC. The Space Launch System justifies employment at MSFC and Utah. 

    On NASA’s current trajectory, in 10 years *neither* space center may hold relevance for space development. 

    The future of NASA human spaceflight is rudderless and confused, between Congress, the White House and Centers fighting over the spoils. 

  10. Andrew Gasser says:
    0
    0

    Of course SLS is destroying Human Space Flight and Johnson… much like JWST is destroying science and Glenn…  However, we should not think that our politicians were not fully aware of this. 

    It is absolutely absurd to think that Mr. Olsen, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Brooks were not aware of what SLS would do.  In fact TPIS visited both Mr. Olsen’s office and Mr. Smith’s office last year in August and November respectfully to show them this.  However, they really were not that convinced.

    SLS is consuming NASA and soon there will be a correction.  It is really sad because everything that Chris Kraft and Gene Krantz built is going to be shredded.  I wonder what Mr. Posey and the Florida delegation think as they get sucked into the SLS black hole?

    After all, this is much bigger than just JSC – it is all of HSFJSC and MOD, you are just victims in the violent game that is politics.

    Respectfully,
    Andrew Gasser
    TEA Party in Space

    • mmeijeri says:
      0
      0

      Oh I see, and I suppose that’s why you advocated competing the phase 2 liquid booster engines for SLS to fix all this. Yeah, that’ll do the trick. It must also have been why you complimented Team DIRECT on their efforts and called them an inspiration.

      • Andrew Gasser says:
        0
        0

        I advocated for DIRECT when it still made sense.  I advocated for DIRECT when it wasn’t fashionable to do so, when all the NASA wonks said it “defied the laws of gravity” (but it really didn’t).  Trend setters do that kind of thing, ya know?  Lead from the front and take spears because the see whats coming before everyone else does.

        We say things that are not popular that tick of political hacks who couldn’t cut it if their funding was removed.  In fact, Marshall, Kennedy, and Johnson all poopoo’d DIRECT and now they wish like hell they had not.  JSC would love a J-120 right now.

        The people who did all the work on DIRECT were ahead of their time and I sincerely hope history remembers them as a team of people who tried to save NASA.  However, with shuttle gone and infrastructure torn down, the DIRECT architecture no longer makes sense.  These were private contractors and NASA trench engineers actually doing work and not blowing smoke up someone’s behind, much like what is happening today.

        Competition is good.  The commercial development model with space act agreements is destroying government micro managed cost plus contracting – who would have thought?  Don’t worry, I’ll be proven right again in three or four years on that too.

        Advocating for less costly liquid boosters were fiscally responsible and engaged the private sector (free markets). The TPIS kept to the core values with wanting a liquid booster that would have spurred competition and reduced costs.

        Respectfully,
        Andrew Gasser
        TEA Party in Space

        • mmeijeri says:
          0
          0

          DIRECT were dishonest and behind the times. I find it ironic that many of the same people who vociferously opposed me when I tried to urge DIRECT towards a more incremental, less ambitious approach (J-120 + DCSS + hypergolic refueling) that would have been a real compromise cheered on the recent Boeing plan that was very similar to what I proposed. They’ve been fighting a rear-guard battle all the time.

          Don’t worry, I’ll be proven right again in three or four years on that too.

          That goes for many of us here, including yours truly. From where I’m sitting it’s hard to see the difference between what you’re doing and a rear-guard defense of NASA Old Space masquerading as advocacy for competitive manned spaceflight. Have you published your list of donors yet, and the conditions if any on your public pronouncements that come with the funding? Do you pay websites and bloggers to publish your press releases?

          There’s nothing respectful about being dishonest.

          • Andrew Gasser says:
            0
            0

            The world would, and NASA, would have been a better place if only those pesky DIRECT folk would have listened to mmeijeri.  The only thing dishonest is when MSFC came out and said that DIRECT wouldn’t work, and then did a sloppy cut and paste.

            There is nothing dishonest in anything DIRECT, TPIS, or myself have done.  We just called it like it was and a bunch of people at HQ, MSFC, KSC, and JSC didn’t like it.DIRECT was right then but isn’t workable now.  And since when does Boeing, Lockheed, or SpaceX have to be happy with anything NASA decides?

            Respectfully,
            Andrew Gasser
            TEA Party in Space

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

             Andrew’s reply to you reminds me of my attempts to deal with the DIRECTies.

            They are all a pack of liars, some with more/better background or worse. They think that sidling up to the “big boss”, they can influence direction, and this will be appreciated. Not

            They think that being a toady matters.

            They oscillate between knowing they never will and  the small glimmer of publicity that hints they may. They are pathetic.

            They get routinely used and discarded.

            That’s why you can’t do anything with them – it interferes with their relationship with the “big boss”.

            It may be that there is no coming back for arsenal space – they are past redemption of any kind.

            Boy, sucking on that solid fuel is real poison.

  11. JJ says:
    0
    0

    This opinion is seriously flawed starting from its title, a national space policy should never be in place just to benefit a specific NASA center – so it loses all credibility even before you read a word.

    The reason NASA favors SLS over spacecraft development is because a rocket is many times more complex, the complexity of rocket science is orders of magnitude more than designing capsules.  So if you have to choose, continuity has a lot more value in the rocket vehicle side than on the spacecraft one.  Another way to put it, is a lot easier (hence cheaper) to restart spacecraft design than the launch vehicle one.

    On the operations side, which JSC is known for, the ISS has a finite life of about a decade, so by extension so does JSC.  So their only hope is SLC or something like it.  I would like to know what “existing” vehicles can take us to the Moon in a decade, since we currently don’t have any man-rated launch rockets.  But nobody is going to provide launch services without a profit, so that means something with similar commitments to SLC.

  12. Gonzo_Skeptic says:
    0
    0

    What are all those “ops” people at JSC doing now?

    So is this what NASA HSF has become?  One jobs program fighting another jobs program for lunch?

  13. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    There are plenty of us with qualifications and experience in real hands on hardware design and systems management ant integration at JSC. But with the ops people managing everything, every time a job opens they give it to their buddies. We cannot get in to do our jobs-its  been like this for a long time. Experience and knowledge count for nothing, which I guess is why the program is in the shape its in.

    • tutiger87 says:
      0
      0

      Don’t knock on all of us ops people buddy. You need both to properly design a system. But you are right about nepotism in the ranks…

  14. Doug Mohney says:
    0
    0

    If you want to put a stake through the heart of SLS, figure out how much “stuff” (habs, landers, etc) you can do and build by redirecting SLS money.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      This was pointed out to a member of hte Congressional staff who noted that money cut from SLS/Orion may be cut from NASA as a whole. Presumably by members of Congress seeking revenge. This seems a highly irrational way to allocate resources.

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

         … money cut from SLS/Orion … cut from NASA as a whole … members of Congress seeking revenge
        Yes. Confirmed heard on the hill.

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

       … put a stake through the heart of SLS …
      SLS is already putting a stake through its own heart.

      Just like CxP before.

      Congress resuscitates.

      Please note the possible sale of Rocketdyne – parent company feels its mined out the money to be made on Shuttle and is moving on. That means they don’t think another “Shuttle like” activity will make it, but that it will be a successive series of stumbles with too low a profit margin as failures to execute add up.

      I believe that the success of many “commercial” space successes … are the real end of SLS. Because after a while it gets hard for K street to show up hat in hand at the Congressman’s door and ask for another billion for another round of failure.

      We need a “reset” to arsenal space / “cost plus”. Then, when they compete fairly, genuinely, not corruptly on an even playing field their skills/experience/”budget effectiveness” will make arsenal space  (and cost plus) worthwhile. Instead of the perception of “the only game in town” – that for national security reasons must be funded. Until then they are a national security liability (in many large projects).

      Like the resets that happen with absurd weapons programs – no difference. Congress is willfully ignorant/negligent in like kind for defense and space.

      • mmeijeri says:
        0
        0

        Then, when they compete fairly, genuinely, not corruptly on an even playing field their skills/experience/”budget effectiveness” will make arsenal space  (and cost plus) worthwhile.

        Best comment in the thread. Not sure about cost-plus though.

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          They’re not all bad, and there’s a lot of unique skills that haven’t yet … become visible.

          Cost plus is/has been an effective tool. A tool that has been abused by political means. “When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”

          And, to be perfectly frank, it’s not going away. Countries will still be building weapons systems. And we’ll need to use that tool … unaffected by its misuse. Simple pragmatism here – nothing more.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        When K Street shows up hat in hand, the hat is usually full of money.

  15. Dewey Vanderhoff says:
    0
    0

    The Upper Midwest and the Mid-Atlantic states have a Rust Belt from the demise of US steel and manufacturing industries as the global economy evolved away from them .

    So goes Houston and Texas…call it a Stainless Steel Belt. JSC served the nation well for the programs it administered at the times needed. But nothing last forever. The Texas space community will just have to adapt. The rest of us do not owe them a living and a legacy , especially one that is wholly dependent on a federal budget line item and taxpayers. I suggest those fervant Texan politicos who are decrying the loss of JSC    jobs simply deflate their egos a few orders of magnitude and start courting the likes of Elon Musk and Commercial Space, Inc industry reps.  It’s the only thing that will save you  from yourselves— unless of course you’d like to fully fund a manned Moon-Mars-Asteroid-Comet  program and re-energize the American math and science education system that Republicans allowed to go fallow ?

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Republicans allowed to go fallow ?

      More like administrations dating back to the 1970’s from BOTH parties AND their congresses….

  16. tutiger87 says:
    0
    0

    All of you continue with the age-old fight of ‘ops vs engineering’, while the Agency burns. Shame on you all. And you are all missing the real problem: poor leadership.

    Folks would probably look at my career at JSC and say “Oh, he’s just an ops guy..”. I hate that. I am an engineer. With the same engineering background as a few folks in Engineering that I know. So cut the crap. Next week I leave the space business behind to do some systems ENGINEERING work for a Navy contractor. I don’t think anyone said:”Don’t hire him, he’s an ops guy!”

    Again, the problem is poor leadership. Its poor leadership that allows senseless bickering like this. Causing Centers to compete over the budget scraps, working on duplicitous projects. Leaders make people know their roles. And on the flip side of that, real leaders know what they don’t know and get the right people involved who do. Hence the big problem on Constellation: you had ops guys who wouldn’t listen to engineering guys and vice versa. Coupled with poor leadership, you couldn’t get anything done. Billions wasted. Not to mention some of the folks who wrote Cx requirements had no business doing so.

    I could go on and on. You guys keep arguing. I’m going off to get myself some systems engineering experience. Then maybe when all the smoke clears, I’ll see if somebody wants to pay for someone with experience from both sides of the fence.

    • chriswilson68 says:
      0
      0

      It sounds like you’re pretty angry.  That’s understandable.  But your anger doesn’t mean the people who said the things you’re angry about are wrong.

      Nobody said ops people are evil or useless.  All they’ve said is that they’re not necessarily the best choice for designing new systems.

      Experience matters.  A lot.  Experience in ops is not the same as experience in designing new systems.

      I wish you well in getting systems engineering experience.

      • tutiger87 says:
        0
        0

        I’m not angry at the folks themselves. I’m angry that the constant ‘systems vs ops’ arguement misses the point. I submit that the lack of good leadership, be they from either background, is the biggest reason why NASA is in the mess that its in.

        And tell me, how do you design a system without operational experience. Hence the problem with Constellation:the systems guys didnt want to listen to the experienced ops guys and the inexperienced ops guys were the ones drawing up requirements. Couple those with poor leadership and you have a disaster. You need both types to provide for the quality development of a system.

        • blamethemall says:
          0
          0

          A new system has to be built first before it can become operational.  When ops looks for new blood, they look for fresh outs, not experienced engineers.  Anyone going into the ops side should have at least 5 years or more engineering experience. 

          Even within engineering community, there is the design side and testing side (the Systems Engineering V), and those 2 groups also argue alot.  Designing stuff is great, but at the end of the day, it still has to work.  Over the years, i have worked in design, project, testing, and ops. 

          I hope you enjoy Systems Engineering as much as i have over the years.  It covers just about ALL aspects of engineering with a bit of business management thrown in.

          To your last point, GOOD engineering top leadership should at least have an understanding of all the disciplines.  They dont necessarily have to be an expert in all fields, just a good understanding of how it all fits together.  That is whats lacking at NASA today.  People who have spent their entire career in only one area suddenly are put in charge of another one they know nothing about.

  17. bobhudson54 says:
    0
    0

    How can SLS hurt Houston? It seems a new launch system would benefit everyone involved. I agree that it can be built cheaper by using existing hardware and not by NASA’s “reinventing the wheel”. The way this whole thing is being done is turning out to be another “white elephant” and prove to be costlier this proposed. Werner Von Braun is turning over in his grave on this one.

    • James Muncy says:
      0
      0

      I happen to live less than a mile from Von Braun’s grave.   And the way SLS hurts Houston is exactly what you said… it’s a white elephant that is (at best) too costly.  More likely never happens.  Which puts JSC out of business, waiting for a rocket that never shows up. 

      And folks… I don’t think Kraft was *only* defending the jobs at JSC.  But he is understandably proud of JSC’s capabilities within the overall human spaceflight community, and worried about losing them.

      • JJ says:
        0
        0

        What puts JSC out of business is that there is nothing planned beyond ISS, which at best has finite life of 5 years under commercial crew.  There is nothing after that.

  18. SkyKing_rocketmail says:
    0
    0

    Yusef A. Johnson-you are right-the Agency is burning-the reason is poor leadership (really non-existent leadership), failure to get the right people involved, ops and engineering people without communication, poorly conceived and defined requirements, billions wasted.

  19. Nassau Goi says:
    0
    0

    “A multicenter NASA team has completed a study on how we can return
    humans to the surface of the moon in the next decade with existing
    launch vehicles and within the existing budget”

    Chris was nowhere to be seen 5 yrs ago when he was trumpeting Constellation. Such a political game this is.