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.
Commercialization

NASA Responds to 60 Minutes Space Coast Profile

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 3, 2012
Filed under ,

Strengthening America’s Leadership in Space Exploration
“Charles Bolden: On Sunday, 60 Minutes aired a story that captured some of what the space shuttle era meant to Florida’s Space Coast. Unfortunately, the piece also missed an awful lot of important context about the end of that era and where we’re headed from here. As a former shuttle astronaut and the Administrator of NASA, nobody has higher regard for the incredible men and women who worked on the Space Shuttle Program. And I certainly understand that for some of those men and women, this transitional period will not be easy.”

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

75 responses to “NASA Responds to 60 Minutes Space Coast Profile”

  1. TMA2050 says:
    0
    0

    Very political answer from Charlie, his boss must surely be proud. 

  2. Monroe2020 says:
    0
    0

    While the story was about SpaceX, I was a little bummed there was no mention of the SLS and Orion.  That would have been a great opportunity for the public to know about this bold program.  A simple but effective message:  Commercial to pick up LEO transport to the ISS.  SLS for deep space missions that will one day trump the Apollo feats.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      The reality is that we can have one or the other but not both. And I see no indication that SLS/Orion can ever produce any product worth its cost.

      • ellegood says:
        0
        0

        There’s the problem: the conclusion that we can have one or the other, but not both. I hope this isn’t the case. As someone important said a while back, we need a space program befitting a great nation. I think this should include a reliable and inexpensive commercial-to-LEO capability in addition to something bigger and better for BEO exploration.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          Eddie, I have enormous respect for your knowledge and insights into both technology and politics, and unlike the rest of us you may have the opportunity to influence events, so I hope I can persuade you to consider my point of view.

          Human spaceflight is valuable, but it is not of infinite value. The market for human spaceflight depends on its cost, like any luxury good. At $20M/seat we could justify two or three seats a year. At $2M we could sell or fund 50-100 passengers per year. But at the current cost of $60M per seat, nothing a human can do in space justifies the cost. This isn’t just me; look at the studies for Shuttle, the recent study for the DOD by Aerospace Corp.

          The expansion of humanity into space is one of the great enterprises of history, but there is a logical strategy by which we must approach it. First we need what we once called an “enabling technology”, a way of getting there that reduces the cost to a practical level. Yet almost no one even knows the cost of rocket fuel! No one understands the historical rationale for Apollo! No one knows why the Shuttle was planned to lower cost, or why it cost so much more than planned! No one understands that ELV manufacturing is a mature technology and they will _not_ become cheaper if we buy more. ECON 101. Look at the curve of price vs demand.

          We are looking for the existential mission of infinite value that will justify the nearly infinite cost of human spaceflight, CFES, helium 3, perfect semiconductors, protein crystals, revolutionary vaccines. All are urban myths. We should be developing new enabling technologies that will reducing the cost of human spaceflight to a level that will make it practical for science and tourism and a new source of markets and jobs for American industry. That’s not a new misison for NASA. That’s the mission the NACA accepted when we began this journey almost a century ago.

          • gogosian2061 says:
            0
            0

             JUST TO RE-ENFORCE THE VALID POINTS MADE = Former Soviet cost for “SOYUZ” round trip to I.S.S. = $60M USD.  Sir Richard Branson’s sub-orbital space tourism price is about $200,000 [per seat] USD — and a Scaled Composites TIER THREE vehicle has not yet been unveiled.  Bigelow Aerospace has teamed with Boeing for some manned spaceflight alternatives into orbit – Transferable technology to Bigelow’s planned [launched from Russian cosmodrome – using converted former ICBMs] “Sundancer” multiple, inflatable technology in orbit as follow-ons to currently in orbit Bigelow “Genesis I” and “Genesis II” prototypes.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          I think this should include a reliable and inexpensive commercial-to-LEO (and  BEO) capability in addition to something bigger and better for BEO exploration.

          WHY DO BEO in a non cost effective manor when you can do it CHEAP using newer “commercial vehicles sooner????????????”

          Spacex still on for april 30th?

          • gogosian2061 says:
            0
            0

             I THOUGHT the FALCON 9 and DRAGON  to the I.S.S was for April 20th?  Can anyone clarify here?

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

       Could you do a bold SLS program for deep space missions – yes.

      Are we doing so – no.

      Why? Because the only “boldness” is that of repeating the same uneconomic and unsafe elements as before so as to encourage vendor “cost plus” advantage. “Bold” is ATK being paid billions to reinvent a segmented solid booster motor that has no flight history to replace the one that had enormous flight history, when we know we shouldn’t be using solids on a HSF LV at all.

      Want a better deal, quicker for doing SLS – well, choose the DIRECT path, or even better the AJAX path. Quicker, less risk, lower cost, greater lift. But wait … lessee … nothing to pay off Utah, less to payoff Florida, Texas, and … Alabama. Nope, we can’t have that, can we?

      And the worst possible … what if those COTS/CCDEV guys actually succeed? At a fraction of our budget? My god … people might even question … what we are doing … might be the end … can’t have that.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Mr. C,

        With due respect to all of the good and honest people in the US, I think America, not just NASA, could do with a citizen’s campaign against the payoff-mania that seems to decide so many issues that have political connections.  Make the people assert that payoff in business is morally wrong and that anyone caught doing business this way (on either side of the hand-off) is subject to social justice and serious fines.  I know this proposal sounds like a tongue in cheek work of fiction, but it’s no less far-fetched than the situation as it exists, and might actually do a lot to turn things around.  In the long run, what people believe wields a lot more power than the truth; why not make positive use of that fact.

        Steve

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

           Mr. Steve,
          The origins of your reasonable proposal being needed is peculiar – let me attempt to illustrate.

          The US government’s first goal to the citizen was “we can keep you safe”. After it felt it could accomplish that, it moved on to “we can make you healthy”.

          Then it made in the 90’s the fatal mistake – moving on to “we can make you rich”. (Note – all of these are from an OMB briefing at Stanford University for how to qualify for research grants I attended – how they talk about it).

          This screwed up everything. It was as if Gordon Gecko “greed … is good” had been made gospel. Not only did many have misgivings about making anyone other than themselves “rich”, they then wanted to insist that if everyone was now “rich”, they should pay for it themselves to be “safe” and “healthy” … even if they hadn’t made it to being “rich” yet.

          “F- you, I’ve got mine” is what they really think – they are totally non strategic. Which is why they don’t care about “social justice” or “graft” (they consider it a cost of doing business). They don’t even care above vaccinations for communicable illness, because they think they’ll hold their breath and someone else not them will get sick.

          This mentality will eventually burn itself out. But not before doing a great deal of damage. And we’ll prove the necessity of interdependence / strategic relationships between people.

          You are sensitive to that damage.

  3. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    One unspoken contention behind the 60 Minutes story was that NASA is a jobs or economic development program. If it is, disappointing as it would be, we should acknowledge that and fund it properly. 
    NASA might also be about science, exploration, human potential, and national pride. Again, if it is, we should say so and fund it properly. Another aspect of the story that was more hinted than stated is that the transition from Shuttle to its successor system was bungled by the Bush administration, NASA, the Obama administration, and Congress. I think everyone can agree on that–especially as we watch Congress attempt to convert the potential victory of commercial crew to a defeat by under-funding and attacking it. We need to recognize the fact that what motivates Congress is not what motivates anyone enthusiastic about space. In fact, Congress has shown again and again that it not only does not understand what a space program is all about, but also that it’s more willing to take dictation from lobbyists than to attempt to learn.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      I agree that everyone could have done better. The Augustine commission failed to produce any new information. Obama could have been more decisive; he left Constellation, obviously a loose end, consuming most of the budget forever. But the biggest failing, the greatest audacity, was that Bush totally violated the CAIB recommendations. This is understandable since apparently neither he nor any other politician bothered to read the report. Bill Nelson has publicly said that the CAIB required Shuttle to be retired at “assembly complete”. Where did he get that idea???? The truth, which anybody can verify, is that the CAIB recommended the shuttle be retired when a replacement system was operational. The CAIB report says in black and white that the Shuttle replacement, if it is designed for anything more ambitious than human flight between the ground and LEO, will fail. Bingo.

      NASA has a tough choice for the current generation of human spaceflight, but its a choice we can no longer postpone. BEO or LEO. There no chance that we can continue supporting both. And there is no chance that BEO human flight, with the technology of SLS/Orion, will be sustainable. If we, the space advocate community, cannot come to a consensus we have no expectation Congress will do so.

      • ellegood says:
        0
        0

        Regarding CAIB’s comment about a Shuttle replacement, perhaps Commercial Crew is that replacement. It is intended for ground-to-LEO, while SLS is something altogether different.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

           Yes!!! Commercial Crew is a direct response to the recommendations of the CAIB Report!! Better late than never.

      • chriswilson68 says:
        0
        0

        There’s no way we’re going to have a consensus in the near future.  That’s because NASA and its contractors are a huge, broken organization.  Outsiders tend to notice it’s broken and be opposed to doing things the same old way.  Those with long-standing ties to the organization fall into two camps — those who buy into the idea that there is no better way and those who don’t.  Most of those that buy in will never, ever be convinced.  And outsiders haven’t been indoctrinated into the culture, so it’s just as unlikely they will suddenly stop noticing how broken the old way is.

        You might as well anguish over the fact that gravity makes it so hard to get off the planet.  The lack of a consensus is just the way it is, and we just have to live with it.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          I agree NASA has very serious problems, but it also has people of great ability and dedication. For us as space enthusiasts to accept the situation as it is would be to abandon a great tradition. The first step in reaching a solution is to admit we have a problem and begin an honest and open discussion. The problem will not be solved by a call for “game changing technology” delivered overnight. It will start with saying that anyone, at any level, is free to question NASA goals and strategies.  Nothing is “above my pay grade”.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Right on the money DS3.

        I wonder how a space advocate community vote would turn out at this point in time.  One ground rule:  we must vote HSF LEO or HSF BEO, not both.

        I, for one, would vote to quit the wheel spinning and work to get LEO right first; there’s so much yet to be done that’s long overdue.  Let HSF BEO wait until we know better what we’re doing.  (I’m not trying to belittle what has been done, but progress has been so painfully slow.)

        Steve

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          Steve are you saying we must lay a strong foundation before we processed to build our structure on shifting sand.
          How quaint and old fashion of you !

          I think we agree even though I say any HSF BEO should be done with new space commercial ships first

        • markr01000 says:
          0
          0

          HSF LEO – Been there. Shuttle. Journey to nowhere. Let the commercial guys fight over the crumbs falling from the table.

          HSF BEO – Better start developing alternate human beings, because those human payloads kill any real space exploration.

          • markr01000 says:
            0
            0

            Exactly. Those pink fleshy payloads are completely impractical for space exploration, but NASA is stuck in a test pilot / cowboy mentality.

        • Paul451 says:
          0
          0

          Before Constellation/SLS I would have voted BEO. “We’ve done LEO, time to stop going ’round in circles!” Which, of course, is the mindset that led to Constellation. “Back to the moon!”

          Now I realise that getting affordable LEO is vital. An effort delayed 30 years by the shuttle. But…

          …just as a Presidential vote for BEO led to Constellation, a vote for LEO would lead to another shuttle-like NASA primes jobs-hog.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Actually when President Bush signed off on the Vision for Space Exploration there wasn’t a CONstellation program.

            The VSE called for work on commercial crew to start in 2010 as soon as the ISS construction phase ended.

            The VSE also called for no new launch vehicles. The CEV was supposed to be launched on a commercial launch vehicle.

            It wasn’t until after Dr. Griffin parachuted in and called for the ESAS that we got the nightmare called CONstellation.

      • NonPublius says:
        0
        0

        Could you please explain, using facts and data, why SLS/Orion will be unsustainable?  I would like to understand.

  4. majormajor42 says:
    0
    0

    To what degree have the jobs (many in Florida) of the $3B shuttle program transferred into jobs (many in Alabama and other states) of the $3B SLS/Orion development program?

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      That depends on whether you mean civil service or contractor.

      • gogosian2061 says:
        0
        0

         ** “TOUCHE”, dog ..!  😉  I was contractor – then consultant in private sector — Until doing V-A homeless outreach from main hospital in West Los Angeles (Dec., 2005 – Jan., 2009).

    • gogosian2061 says:
      0
      0

       EVER BEEN TOLD YOU ARE “over- qualified” for full employment in any portion of the US  job market – just because of prior space related employment — be it NASA, military or civil?  ** IT “SUX” – for me during the past 32 years, in fact!

  5. gogosian2061 says:
    0
    0

    Let’s add some pre- history to the Augustine Commission on “NASA Human Space Flight Review” – from which evolved into The White House web site: “The National Space Policy of the United States of America” [June, 2010] after President Obama’s Tax Day speech on that topic at The Cape (Florida) on April 15, 2010.

    Before the new NASA Administrator was nominated by President Obama: TWO shuttle orbiter recoveries were diverted to Edwards AFB, CA due to bad weather at The Cape.  Both recoveries “went around” on 24-hour additional in-orbit time!

    The first crew was livid on descending to ‘terra firma’ from the orbiter!

    And rightly so! One additional day in space was essentially wasted – A VERY EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION, BY ANY BUDGETARY MEASURE!

    Within weeks, identical bad weather conditions existed at The Cape and again the recovery was diverted to Edwards AFB in the Mojave Desert.

    AND ONCE MORE: A 24-hour “go-around” without justification nor any later explanation was ordered by mission controllers in Houston. 

    MORE ADDED EXPENSE, NEEDLESSLY! Lesson learned by policy makers: NASA could not be trusted with taxpayer’s dimes –

    SO – – – A SPACE POLICY CHANGE WAS in order. The Augustine Commission delivered precisely that! 

    Any questions?

    • chriswilson68 says:
      0
      0

      How exactly does spending 24 more hours in orbit cause additional costs?  Having to land at Edwards and transport the orbiter back to the Cape has costs, but those costs are because of where the orbit lands, not when it lands.

      • gogosian2061 says:
        0
        0

        To “chris …” – See my two above replies to “rckt ..” and “honest …” — please?

    • Honesthoward says:
      0
      0

      I have question – Where in the world do you get your information??  The cost of an Edwards landing and one more day in space is nothing compared to the overall Shuttle yearly program cost or even the cost of a single launch.

      • gogosian2061 says:
        0
        0

         To “honest …” – MY INFORMATION came from HQ NASA & its  once highly touted P-R shop – When questions were raised on “cost savings” for two orbital missions, two [*2!*]  one day go-arounds before both recoveries  – twice at NASA Dryden – I received a link to “RECOVERY.gov” web site and NO DETAILS AT ALL from HQ NASA!

        • Honesthoward says:
          0
          0

          The cost of staying in space one more day is significantly less than the cost of landing somewhere other than KSC and ferrying the Orbiter back to KSC.  The “costs” you cite of staying space another day are either sunk costs that exist regardless of the number of days in space or are less than the several million it takes to support a non-KSC landing for post-landing servicing, ferry flight, etc. 

          Check your facts.

          • gogosian2061 says:
            0
            0

             FACTS HAVE BEEN CHECKED – YEARS AGO and remain valid to all but “un- washed” it seems!

    • Rcktscience says:
      0
      0

      Exactly how did you come to the conclusion that staying on orbit an extra day was more expensive than landing at Dryden? Landing at Dryden meant flying hundreds of people from FL to CA, putting them in hotels, renting them cars and paying them a daily food allowance. In addition, the fuel to fly back atop the SCA. The extra ops involved post ferry at KSC was also additional $. It was well into the millions to land at Dryden as opposed to KSC. I’d say NASA did as best they could to save the taxpayers money in that scenario. If it was safe to do so they should have stayed on orbit until the last possible 2-3 orbits to always opt for a KSC landing.

      • gogosian2061 says:
        0
        0

         To “RCKT …” == Sir, Have you ever been involved with all the “range” – world-wide telemetry support for manned space missions by NASA shuttle orbiters?  IT WAS and STILL IS EXPENSIVE!  In fact – VERY EXPENSIVE!  ** Likewise HQ NORAD and USAF Space Command “orbital debris” support for NASA Johnson / Office of Orbital Debris! ** Your mind-set seems more in line with NASA HQ = Spend until Congress says stop, and no one has yet — Until both houses of Congress HAVE REJECTED OBAMA’s ENTIRE PROPOSED BUDGET for FY 2013, SO FAR!  Including substantial reductions in planetary science at JPL, which is a bargain – by any stretch, compared with manned spaceflight and still “no where to go”, yet!

      • gogosian2061 says:
        0
        0

        ** I’ve been in Tehachapi when recoveries were made to NASA Dryden / Edwards AFB.  Am very hard pressed to have found “hundreds” of techs” at the once and former TraveLodge Motel where most stayed — even counting those staying in Cities of Mojave, Lancaster or Palmdale.

        • OpenTrackRacer says:
          0
          0

          Tehachapi is a LONG way from Edwards AFB.  Beyond that, your assertions have no basis in fact.

        • Rcktscience says:
          0
          0

          Having supported Dryden landings, I can confidently say more than 150 KSC employees (nasa/usa/bna/lm) were sent to support Dryden landings. I’m basing all my observations from a post Columbia world as we may be comparing two different times in history. Only time I heard of folks staying in Tehachapi was if a majority of places in Lancaster were full.

          • gogosian2061 says:
            0
            0

             NOBODY “stays in Lancaster” nor Mojave, for that matter, if they can charge NASA “five star  motel” reimbursements — They stay at Hiltons in Palmdale!  😉

  6. newpapyrus says:
    0
    0

    The week before, 60 minutes presented the perspective of Elon Musk and Space X. Last week 60 minutes showed some balance by  presenting the views of some of  NASA’s private vendors. The Augustine Commissioned determined that the space shuttle could be continued if a shuttle derived architecture was selected. It eventually was only after the Obama administration tried to completely stop NASA from developing any manned spaceflight capability. But President Obama still terminated the shuttle program.

    Was there enough money to continue the shuttle program until the SLS/MPCV was ready? The Shuttle/ISS program was about $5 billion a year and the Constellation program was $3.4 billion a year. The SLS/MPCV program cost are currently  only $3 billion a year. Bolden claims the SLS development is doing so well that they can even lower SLS/MPCV funding below $3 billion:-) So yes! There was enough money after the Constellation program was canceled.

    Plus Congress seemed perfectly willing to even increase the NASA budget if the Obama administration had any clear near term goals for NASA’s manned space program. Unfortunately they didn’t!

    Marcel F. Williams

    • nasa817 says:
      0
      0

      Obama didn’t terminate the Shuttle program, Bush did.  The Shuttle program was beyond the point of no return before Obama was even the Democratic nominee for the presidential election.  Suppliers of sole-sourced items for the Shuttle, of which there were hundreds, were all shut down under Griffin’s tenure.  It would have cost tens of billions and taken a decade to recertify parts and suppliers for these items in order to extend the Shuttle.  Here’s a little excerpt from Wayne Hale’s blog in the summer of 2008.

      “Starting four years ago, the shuttle program in its various projects
      made “lifetime buys”.  That is, we bought enough piece parts to fly all
      the flights on the manifest plus a prudent margin of reserves.  Then we
      started sending out termination letters.  About two years ago, we
      terminated 95% of the vendors for parts for the external tank project,
      for example.  Smaller, but still significant, percentages of vendors
      for SSME, Orbiter, and RSRB have also been terminated.”

      Did you get that?  95% of ET part vendors were terminated in 2006!

      So quit blaming Obama.  It’s not his fault, it’s not Bush’s fault, it’s not Congress’ fault.  NASA alone is at fault for their woes.  NASA failed miserably with Constellation, they are failing miserably at SLS/MPCV, and they aren’t even serious about Commercial Crew.  My god, we get $18 billion per year and we can’t do sh!t.  We’ve spent over $6 billion on a capsule that is another $2 billion away from a test flight.  This is insanity.  If we don’t get NASA completely out of the way for human space flight so that commercial can succeed, this country will never put people in space again.  NASA sure as hell never will.  Too incompetent, too political, too arrogant to admit it, and too stupid to figure it out.  Let the FAA do it all, the Federal Aerospace Administration.  It’s all regulatory anyway.  We’re not developing new technology, just giving contracts for existing stuff.  The FAA can do that, it’s not rocket science.

      If you want to blame someone, Mike Griffin is your man.  He was the final nail in the coffin.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        I agree with much of your analysis. But in spite of everything I still believe there are good people at NASA who can accomplish great things. If we cannot fix the system, we can’t expect “private industry” to necessarily do any better. Open discussion is essential. This forum is a start.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          To fix the system doesn’t NASA need to design missions that are truely done by companies that provide a turn key solution, and it be truely competive.

          the whole public model is unworkable.

          Design Beo missions for the CHEAPER guys now. RIGHT We don’t have the money to burn, because high dollar BEO just delays cheaper  BEO programs. Right?

          Nasa big exploration big rocket ideas are completly counter to where and how money should be spent.

          I would limit direct devlopment program as much as possible for mission programs that create the reason to build the hardware.

          just like we have ISS as the mission for commercial LEO,do the same with the moon and mars and robot missions NOW!

          Isn’t that the heart of the problem??

      • newpapyrus says:
        0
        0

        Sorry but the Shuttle program– was not– beyond the point of no return after Obama came to office. The manager of the Shuttle program, John Shannon, in March of 2010 (more than a year after Obama was in office) said that the shuttle program could be continued at a cost of $2.4 billion a year.

        NASA: Space Shuttles Could Fly Longer With Extra Funds

        http://www.space.com/8021-n

        In February of 2011 (two years after Obama was in office), the USA (United Space Alliance), said that they could continue the Shuttle Program for NASA with a minimum of two flights per a year at a cost of only  $1.5 billion a year.

        Forever Endeavour: USA has Plan to Continue Flying Space Shuttles

        http://www.universetoday.co

        Both proposals fell on deaf ears at the White House.

        And why do you hate the only agency that has managed to put Americans into space and on the Moon?   NASA is actually helping private companies to develop their own private manned space programs with both money and expertise. Elon Musk thanked NASA for their help!  And he should!

        Private industry is currently sitting on $2 trillion dollars in potential investment dollars.  Just 0.5% ($10 billion) of those private funds could help several private American spaceflight companies develop and deploy man rated vehicles. But I guess the corporations are too busy investing in China:-)

        Marcel F. Williams

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          That makes no sense. The lines had been closed and people laid off. All Shannon said was .. yes we can still fly the shuttle if you rehire and retool and yes it will cost BILLIONS to do it.

          You are saying that Saturn V could be flown again.. IF we want to spending the BILLIONS to retool and build it.

          The shuttle was dead as per what Wayne Hale wrote. And it made absolutely no sense to resurrect it.

    • gogosian2061 says:
      0
      0

       Historical reality check – ONCE UPON A TIME, then Dan Goldin was NASA Administrator, Lockheed Skunk Works in Palmdale, CA had the “X-33” [Single Stage to Orbit / Recoverable Launch Vehicle] contract to replace the shuttle orbiter. ** The program was literally weeks way from test flights of the X-33 prototype, when Administrator Goldin cancelled the program – reportedly under pressure from the “NASA Astronaut Corps” which discovered the X-33 flight control systems were state-of-the-art — AUTOMATED, putting astronauts out of work!  ** For this cancellation – Goldin received from Congress – “The Golden Raspberry Award” for the absolutely WORST BUREAUCRATIC DECISION MADE that Fiscal Year! … LATER =  Along came Orion and Constellation in another presidential administration.

      • OpenTrackRacer says:
        0
        0

         What alternate universe do you live in?  The X-33 was a subscale technology demonstrator.  It was canceled due to technical issues (primarily weight and composite propellent tank failures) and a lack of tenacity at NASA to see the project through.  It didn’t help that it NASA was trying to create an unreasonable number of breakthroughs in a single shot using a single vehicle.

        • gogosian2061 says:
          0
          0

           TO: “Open ..” DON’T GET SUCKED in re: HQ NASA ‘spin’ on composite technology in fuel tanks being ‘faulty’! THAT WAS A BLATANT LIE and revealed as such, soon afterward in a failed attempt to justify DAN GOLDIN’s shoddy, ill-timed cancellation of X-33 prototype for the SSTO / RLV to replace shuttle orbiter!

        • gogosian2061 says:
          0
          0

           AMONG X-33 [SSTO / RLV] break- throughs WERE (a) the ROCKETDYNE proprietary “linear aero-spike engine” [ram-jet] to power the X-33; (b) Lock-Mart Skunk Works maintenance turn-around concept to have dramatically reduced time between mission readiness; and (c) the state-of-art automated flight control systems [FCS], from which the ‘Global Hawk’ missions were derived under Northrop Grumman in Palmdale. ** For instance: Global Hawk flew non-stop, un-refueled round trips [‘uploaded, ‘autonomous flight plans’  using ‘hands-off’ control] from US to Australia — and return — in flight demonstrations along Northern Australia coasts for tracking ‘boat people’ whose massive illegal immigrations – threatening Aussies – origins: from both Indonesia and the P.I.!

          • gogosian2061 says:
            0
            0

            ** “OOPS”! — Neglected to mention another Palmdale / Antelope Valley (CA) break-through in R&D for the SSTO / RLV = (d) A one-tenth scale model linear aero-spike engine was mounted atop the NASA SR-71 from Dryden Center for flight tests of the main propulsion system. [Ask the well placed ‘AeroTechNews’ staff in Lancaster, for confirmation of public information – or – the “Antelope Valley Press” daily paper in Palmdale].

      • NonPublius says:
        0
        0

        The X-33 was at least 8,000 lb overweight and a couple of hundred million dollars over budget when it was mercifully killed, and we were a lot more than “weeks away” from any test flight.  The initial landing site when launching from Vandenburg was Malmstrom AFB in Montana, but with the vehicle weight growth and the lack of performance of the linear aerospike engines, we couldn’t have even gotten THAT far on a suborbital flight.  The mass fraction was too high using the materials we had available at that time.  Single stage to orbit is a deadend until we come up with new materials or designs that reduce the vehicle mass.  Goldin was wrong about a lot of things, but not cancelling X-33.

  7. SpaceTeacher says:
    0
    0

    This story must have upset people it the White House so it must be true! Bolden is a horrible adminstrator.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      If you wish to persuade others of your opinions, I would suggest they be accompanied by the assumptions, observations and logic upon which they are based. It is hard to blame job losses in Florida on Bolden’s qualifications as an administrator since he did not direct the termination of the shuttle program. He has supported Commercial Crew, which would certainly create jobs in Florida, but has been repeatedly attacked for this by members of Congress.

      • SpaceTeacher says:
        0
        0

        I base my opinion upon the fact that the administrator just spouts what the administration wants. His public appearances are limited and he doesn’t seem to have a true love for his agency. I still admire him for his service to his country as a Marine and as an astronaut. I realize that not all of NASA’s problems are his fault.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          More likely that he loves the agency but hates all the BS, pork politics, repeatedly trying to do the same thing that always ends in failure. NASA personal who try and torpeado commercial opportunites so NASA can be the same ole same ole.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        It is my understanding from the articles by the reporter Kelly over at florida today, that NASA is not losing anyone. Independant contractors have taken a hit but NASA only lost like 13 people last year, according to his reports.

        Hard to claim he is not holding NASA together.

  8. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    “I was a little bummed there was no mention of the SLS and Orion.  That would have been a great opportunity for the public to know about this bold program.”
    Who are you kidding, a ‘bold program’? 

    What is the program, to build another Apollo spaceship-no scratch that, all we are working on is a command module. No service module, so no real capability to go anywhere for another decade. No landers or mission modules and no money for that and at the rate they are spending no opportunity for that until the 2030s-thats another generation. Apollo was defunct in 1975. Now is the time for new technology and new capabilities. Apollo was terminated for a reason; we could not afford it. Orion after only eight years of work and the first $15 billion looks like it will be even more expensive. A bold program? Where? Where is it hiding? 

  9. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    on track to have American companies transporting our astronauts to the station sooner than would likely have happened under the previous Administration’s plan.It likely would have been testing soon under COTS-D.SpaceX would be ready to go.Would have saved a lot of money and time.If only had NASA followed the law under the 2008 authorization act to fund COTS-D ASAP.NASA had plenty of funds and people to build a simple system themselves and be ready when the Shuttle quit.$10 a pound of launcher.That is the cost of aircraft aluminum.$136,000 for Titan-2.A 2 crew launcher.Graver said they did not have enough money for COTS-D.Why did she not mention NASA doing it?It is strange that a Reagan Republican did Ares-1X and a Liberal Democrat is doing commercial privatization.I wonder what core Democrats think of that?Everybody but NASA,including Russia,wanted this.Let USAF,FAA or Commerce Dept. build a launcher  and crew spacecraft.They may want to do what the People want.NASA Hq. sure doesn’t.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      The VSE didn’t call for funding for Commercial crew until 2011. In 2009 President Obama wanted 400 million from the stimulus to start that but Senator Shelby killed that only allowed 50 million.

      In his 2010 budget President Obama wanted 6 billion over 5 years, but again Shelby and the republicans refused, and commcial crew only recieved 250 million.

      In 2011 budget President Obama called for 850 million and the house republicans chopped it to 300 million it ended up at 406 million.

  10. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    I’m not surprised that the civil space community can’t converge and act as an effective pressure group — which it badly needs to do. Judging by some of the posts here and on other sites, we’re more of a circular firing squad than a unified front.

    • Dr. Brian Chip Birge says:
      0
      0

       So true, what an apt analogy.

    • Littrow says:
      0
      0

      That is why we need a goal, a program and some legitimate leadership. All 3 are missing.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Space is a place … not a program.

        NASA should be the pump primer .. the enabler… they should be pumping out the tech and pushing it into the private sector.

        President Reagan had NASA’s mandate changed to add, to seek out and encourage to the maximum extent possible the fulliest use of commercial space.

        Hell, all they have to do actually follow the freakin’ law and it would make it a better place.

    • NonPublius says:
      0
      0

      You are right on sir.

  11. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    With all the serious talk about what to do I thought I’d throw this idea out there for fun
    Clem!!!!!  I love SLS ! You know why??
    Because nothing I can think up can be any more ridiculous than building a Rocket just as expensive as the one they canceled 45 years ago because they couldn’t afford it back then and they know they can’t afford it now.
    Anyway these NASA Watch posts keep rattling around in my head.
    Like Mr. C saying that fuel could be launched using Sea pressure. (Science fiction )
    Steve saying a rail launcher works best at the Equator.
    Tinker or Steve saying that the higher you are at launch the less fuel you need.
    Congress likes having the biggest Titanic rocket yet they are just going to burn it up each time.
    Clem,You remember the pump pellet guns you and I had as  kids? The pellet looks just like a falcon second stage with a heat shield.
    What if we had rail launcher or gun that was higher than the highest mountain and at the equator?
    Anyway I was thinking all this when I turned up a 2 liter diet Pepsi bottle and I started to suck the air out of it and it collapsed do to no air pressure which of curse got me thinking of that dam vacuum sphere idea again lol. So I thought if I just had some straws inside it I could keep it from collapsing. Well a straw looks a lot like a gun barrel of the tube of an electromagnetic or expanding gas/fluid launcher. So that plus all that dam diet Pepsi got me thinking what if NASA built a fuel rail launcher miles long that could float on air just like an aircraft carrier floats on water. lol A Spacecraft carrier 🙂
    Congress wants big and impressive right?  Well how about a vacuum dirigible miles long that can fly like the Hindenburg only uses solar energy to run its propellers. The launcher tube could double as the back bone of your cylindrical shaped dirigible. I think you would construct it with a truss system that reinforces the perimeter making the edge of the circle strong  plus tying  your barrel tube to the cylinder should make the whole system stiff and strong.
    Anyway I don’t know if you would have a small nuke plant on board to power your launcher or use some other gas system.
    But it seems to me that a floating air rifle could be a cheaper better way to launch fuel and if long enough maybe even humans into to space cheaper and better than SLS.
    Imagine
    A giant airship, a quarter mile in diameter and miles long able to launch falcon second stage payloads all the way to LEO. Looking in the sky like a giant foot long hot dog. It is segmented just like the Titatic for safety. It has a landing platform just like an aircraft carriers. A floating city with 100s of people living in the structure. A foating commercial space port.
    Science fiction I guess but no more science fiction than that old SLS rocket that will never get built or flown.
    I bet my Giant dirigible could be built for cheaper than the SLS and Orion, if built by commercial guys and last for 10s of decades providing cheap fuel and human launch to build the inner solar system railroad.
    If you are going to build a giant ship, why burn it up if you don’t have too?

    Let’s build something that lasts!
    Let’s build something that makes that railroad to the stars happen!
    What are we standing a circle for shooting at each other for?

    With your backs against the wall (space community) I really don’t understand why you can’t get together on the simple fact that things have to change for us to have a space future so that all our dreams can one day be realized.

    Inner Solar System Railroad Inc.

    allllll aboard !!!!!!

  12. Jerry_Browner says:
    0
    0

    Sorry Charlie but there were plenty of opportunities to do things differently. When Mr. Obama got into office there was still a chance to turn Shuttle around. When you got in there there was still an opportunity to extend out the flights. By your inaction you were basically just hiding your head in the sand; you remind me of those monkeys, hiding their eyes, covering their ears: “don’t tell me, I don’t want to know”. Obama, Bolden and Gerstenmayer have risked the ISS, and you have risked the entire future of NASA human space flight. 

    • Bryan Kelly says:
      0
      0

      No there was not a chance to continue shuttle when Obama took office.  The tank production had stopped the people had been laid off and suppliers had stopped smelting the alloys.  Obama extended the program to use all available tanks but that is all that could be done to extend shuttle. 

  13. gogosian2061 says:
    0
    0

    ON THE CUSP of a quadrennial Presidential election year – Let me see if I comprehend the unbelievable political landscape, shall we?

    The incumbent (OBAMA) has a program — SLS / Orion — but no where to go!

    The main challenger (ROMNEY) is non-committal about NASA’s future!

    IS ANY ONE ELSE as SCARED to the degree that I am, now?

    God himself knows I was “present at the creation” of the U. S. commercial space sector at the “First Commercial Space Confreence” at the Santa Maria Inn – near Vandenberg AFB – in the day.

    But somehow a sole reliance on just a “robust commercial space sector” leaves a lot of potentially exciting and commercially lucrative robotic, deep space technology in a lurch – or so it seems to me.

    That’s seemingly what “The National Space Policy of the United States” reflects on The White House web site [dated June, 2010].

    • Jerry_Browner says:
      0
      0

       Yes, you should be all fearful as should we all. The current Orion/SLS will not be ready in the next 4 years, likely not even in the next 8. So certainly the ‘NASA’ human space flight program is definitely at risk. Commercial space does not yet exist. The few areas in which commercialization is real, like comsats, are already in existence. Maybe at some point the ISS will prove useful commercially, but today that does not exist. Maybe at some point commercial suppliers will be able to haul cargo or crew to ISS; we might even do an initial test of the capability in the next few weeks, but a robust commercial capability does not exist and likely will not for many years. We should all be fearful.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        2021 first manned launch .. about 9 years.

        • gogosian2061 says:
          0
          0

           DONALD – WHOSE time line are you quoting here? NASA HSF?  ** Virgin Galactic human space tourism, sub-orbital (admittedly) has been announced by Sir Richard Branson “by Christmas, 2012” from Spaceport America, near Las Cruces, NM.  It’s commercial space!

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        you state: “Commercial space does not yet exist.”

        Then in your next sentence you state where in fact commercial space does exist.

        Commerical human access to LEO does not exist yet but it will be here before SLS ever launches.

        Once we have a commercial access and Bigelow launches .. America will start to see how badly we have been screwed by pork politicians and the ususal cost plus contractors.

  14. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Getting to LEO with a blank check is child’s play. If you want to go back you have to do it at a price less than the value of the work you can do there. Now THAT’s a challenge.

    HSF BEO: Frankly you’re afraid of dragons, created by people fishing for grants. The real problem is cost, which is much higher than it is in LEO.  When HSF in LEO is practical, we can go BEO and demonstrate that the dragons are easily tamed.