Post-election Space Policy
Keith’s note: President Obama has won re-election. What will this mean for space policy? Will (should) NASA have a new administrator? – if so, then who? Should NASA’s budget be increased? Should there be more commercial focus? Does the planetary science budget need to be increased? Will Congress be more or less cooperative with the White House? Thoughts?
Oh yes: Charlie Bolden is on a trip to Hawaii for 6 days for the local 237th Marine Corps Birthday Ball. He’s the guest of honor at this event.
Earlier Election 2012 posts
Let NASA determine it’s requirements for heavy lift – once there is a plan for where they intend to go. Then let the private sector supply the launcher. There’s got to be more competition – that will being the cost down and leave NASA to do what it does so well: pushing the envelope and doing the things that haven’t been done before.
I think NASA needs to determine its plans for and needs for Orion once they decide where they were going and why. Then, to paraphrase your words, let the private sector provide the vehicle. That will keep the cost down and perhaps will actually permit the job to be completed.
Right now, Orion is a vehicle searching for a mission-and a way to get to orbit. It is no more needed that the SLS.
If you are going to build a sustainable program for exploration, Orion is not the way to go.
Impossible. This plan do not have place for pork.
I would like to add just a tad to this:
“Let NASA determine it’s requirements for heavy lift “
Let NASA determine the items it needs launched, let the commercial sector determine how to get it to the destination.
Vlad,
Actually, I’d be inclined to omit references to heavy lift or anything else and say simply, “Let NASA determine its requirements” as a first step.
If we presuppose anything at all then we may be going down wrong paths right from the outset. It may turn out that, left to themselves for a while, the NASA folks might well develop an excellent set of policies and plans for the next 20 years which don’t require heavy lift (or any other presupposed item) at all.
After all of the discussion that has gone on about this, I still maintain that once NASA has determined (or had dictated to it, if that ‘s the way things are going to be) exactly what it’s goals and objectives are for the next X years, then and only then can they go about determining what their requirements are. And only after they’ve detailed their requirements can there be any meaningful decisions made about hardware, destinations, missions. etc. I always make up a shopping list based on what we want and need before going to the grocery store, because that’s the only way, short of dumb luck, that I’ll end up with what we need. It’s no different for NASA; just more complicated and more expensive.
Steve
Obama winning means little to no change to NASA. Bolden will stay. It was hard enough to find an Administrator that got the support of the Senate in 2009. Senator Nelson also got re-elected.
Despite not having a distinct mission goal for manned space flight NASA has a lot on its plate. It has the Orion capsule which is designed for BEO missions. No other country has such a vehicle. Elon Musk is in the process of designing and building a BEO Mars mission Dragon capsule but it won’t have its first test for three years or so.
The SLS may not make it thru the budget cuts next year but that won’t hurt NASA that much. The Orion will NOT be cut because its the only BEO vehicle we have. I also look for more cooperation from the NASA space centers for commercialization. The testing of the Blue Origin engine at Stennis is a good example. I really don’t see any draw back by NASA from commercialization.
I think Charley is going to continue to be the NASA administrator if for nothing else due to his ability to deal with Congress mandates (SLS) and still continue commercializing. Things aren’t going to settle down any time soon until the SLS falls victim to budget cuts if ever. I think Charley also realizes the importance of a mission goal for manned space flight and will be able to effectively communicate that to the white house. Or maybe I am just hoping for too much. Only time will tell.
“NASA has the Orion capsule which is designed for BEO missions…its the only BEO vehicle we have.”
This is bull-crap. What you have written is total fiction.
Neither NASA nor anyone else has an Orion capsule. They’ve been working on it since 2005 (7 years), and have spent $10-15 billion, but all they might have in another 2-3 years is the shell of a reentry vehicle. It has no launch vehicle. It has no service module. It does not have the attendant systems required for the vehicle to fly autonomously or with crew.
At this point Orion is nothing more than an (expensive) dream. Under the most optimistic schedules, Orion does not become a functional vehicle for another 6 years when it will have its first test-flight, and man-carrying, going beyond earth orbit, not for another 9 or 10 years. And these time-spans are likely unrealistic because Orion has never made any planned schedule dates in its history. It has been slipping year for year.
“Elon Musk is in the process of designing and building a BEO Mars mission Dragon capsule but it won’t have its first test for three years or so.”
And you do realize that Musk’s plan and schedule are at least a half decade ahead of Orion? Musk has flown a nearly fully functional prototype of the manned Mars carrier several times-SUCCESSFULLY. Orion doesn’t even try to fly a test flight for another half decade. Musk has under spent Orion at least ten-fold.
First scheduled test for Orion is in 2014. Get your facts straight. Are you asserting that a Dragon capsule has flown with all attendent human support systems? And are you asserting that it is BEO designed and capable of BEO high speed re-entry?
The test flight in 2014 is a heat shield test, not an Orion capsule test. The capsule will be full of test sensors, not human systems.
I would point out there have been no human systems on the Dragon either. Altough according to Brian_M2525 it would easy peasy, twice as easy to put them on the dragon, no problemo.
It is my understanding that you need climate control in the dragon for hauling certain cargos up and down. Some O2 scrubbers and Oxygen is not something that will take a decade to develop.
“It is my understanding that you need climate control in the dragon for hauling certain cargos up and down. Some O2 scrubbers and Oxygen is not something that will take a decade to develop.”
And you know this because……?
I know this because I do some Due Diligence:
“Thermal Protections System / Heat ShieldSpaceX worked in close
operation to develop the heat shield of the Dragon Capsule that has to withstand
up to 1,600°C during re-entry. PICA-X is derived from NASA’s phenolic
impregnated carbon ablator heat shield, also called PICA. This heat shield has a
substantial flight heritage. The PICA-X version is expected to be re-usable many
times without showing a high degree of degradation. This design also provides
high flexibility in the nature of a mission as it can also support re-entries at
velocities exceeding typical speeds of Low Earth Orbit Missions. No
modifications would be required for a Moon or Mars Flight. The heat shield was
designed in less than four years. It completed its successful flight
verification on the Dragon C1 Mission in December 2010.
Thermal Control SystemTo
regulate Temperatures inside the Capsule while flying through the Space
Environment, Dragon is outfitted with two fully redundant pumped fluid cooling
loops. Radiators are mounted to the Trunk’s structure.”
http://www.spaceflight101.c…
“I know this because I do some Due Diligence:”
Then you should know that Dragon has never been tested for it. Orion will be tested. In fact Orion will be the first capsule since Apollo to go 3600 miles out for such a test. And furthermore nothing in your statement says how easy it would be to install and test human environment into the Dragon. Go flaunt your supposed Due Diligence somewhere else please.
I think you are the one who needs to get their facts straight.
“First scheduled test for Orion is in 2014”
No it is not an Orion. It is a shell of a reentry vehicle designed for testing the heat shield, which, since its fifty year old technology, really needs no test, but hey, people like you give a lot of hype about ‘its testing he spaceship’, kind of like Ares 1X was a test of the Arets rocket (NOT) and its something for all those people to do in the midst of a long dry spell of no missions. The 2014 test flight is more similar to the Project Fire tests of the Apollo capsule design http://www.wired.com/wireds… ; http://space.skyrocket.de/d… ;
And by the way those tests were done long ago, and to quote Mike Griffin, ‘safe, simple, soon, one of the reasons they went with the Orion design was so that they would not need to reinvent the wheel. But they are anyway.’
“Are you asserting that a Dragon capsule has flown with all attendent human support systems?”
Dragon is fully functional as demonstrated in 3 missions to date, except for a complete ECLS system, which is relatively simple for a capsule of this size.
And are you asserting that it is BEO designed and capable of BEO high speed re-entry?
Dragon was designed from the outset for carrying people and for beyond earth orbit use. Unlike Orion’s fifty year old heatshield technology, Dragon has a high tech heatshield similar to that used for the Stardust comet return spacecraft.
Boeing’s statement that the CST100 is being designed only for LEO is mainly because they do not want to get cross-wise with NASA and Lockheed. Fact is, the spacecraft is easily adpatable for BEO missions. The identification of the mission as LEO only was more political than technical.
Some of us have actually designed, built and flown real spacecraft, unlike the dreamers, who in their dreams see an Orion flying, but cannot seem to get their act together to actually develop a real working version.
WHat spacecraft have you designed, built and flown? I am genuinely curious.
Thank you, I have not seen anything about this being some ‘full up’ systems test of a working MPCV. I have just not seen funding reports that show it is going to be totally completed by next year.
Nobody said it was going to be totaly compeleted. It will be sent with 50% or more of its systems to be tested and it will sent 3600 miles out which Dragon has never even been tested for. When Orion is sent 3600 miles out it will be the first time 40 years that the US has sent a capsule that far out. That’s is way more than just being a “shell”.
Has NASA bought a Delta IV and has NASA funded the intergration connecting ring for mounting the Orion on the Delta IV?
These are the items scheduled for test in 2014:
• The Launch Abort System (LAS) – Propels the Orion Crew Module to safety in an emergency during launch or ascent• • The Orion Crew Module (CM) – Houses and transports NASA’s astronauts during spaceflight missions• The Service Module (SM) – Contains Orion’s propulsion, power and life support systems• The Spacecraft Adaptor and Fairings – Connects Orion to the launch vehicle• The Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle to Stage Adaptor (MSA) – Connects the entire vehicle structure to the kick stage of the rocket
Gentlemen,
The actual worth of Orion, the existence of any alternatives, and the schedules of any of these are actually immaterial at this point I would say because, for the time being, nothing has changed with respect to the Senate and House passed legislation that says SLS and Orion shall be built and tested, period.
Unless there is a major change in the long-standing Congress vs. White House stand-off, SLS and Orion will continue to diddle away at their inadequate budgets until a new era of across-the-aisle cooperation begins (if ever it does) and this legislation is either rescinded or massively modified.
Remember that we’ve got contracts for all kinds of questionable items, like the revised booster contest, redesigned Shuttle engines, etc., still going as well, and no planned use for any of this stuff, except maybe the L2 gateway (yet to be detailed). And it’s not likely that there will suddenly be money allocated for BEO missions for years to come anyhow.
If we are to see NASA embark on a sustainable HSF program, or even programs that will positively contribute to sustainable HSF down the road, then there is a great deal of stuff already in play that will have to be somehow “undone” first. The cancellation penalties alone for all of it would probably run into billions of dollars. So, I don’t imagine seeing any major new plans happening anytime soon. It might well take the next four years to get out of the wrong turns (my opinion) that have already been taken.
As a final comment, HSF, especially BEO HSF progress is going to require getting a lot more out the ISS than has been accomplished to date, but unfortunately a lot of people don’t seem to believe that this is true, so that battle will have to be fought first as well. There’s a lot to be done now and it’s going to take patience on our part, especially considering that NASA/space is not the most important and time-critical issue on the federal government’s To Do List.
Steve
Ralphy999: “The Orion will NOT be cut because its the only BEO vehicle we have. “
Just for clarification:
1. How does this fit in with your reference to the BEO Dragon? Does “we have” means “NASA has”?
2. Is the Orion under construction for the unmanned LEO test orbit actually up to BEO specs? If not, it may be no closer to BEO-capable than the CST-100.
BEO Dragon is hypothetical. Even if SpaceX go ahead, it isn’t likely in less time than Orion. Remember that we’re looking at 2017 for the first flight of Orion in its BEO configuration and ‘2021 for its’ first crewed flight. This tells you more or less where BEO stands in national funding priorities.
I admit, I don’t know what developments Spacex would need to make a Dragon cis-lunar. Do you know what they are, and know for a fact that they would require 10 years or more?
The Apollo capsule flew men around the Moon about seven years after its project start in 1961.
1. Improved thermal and ionising radiation shields;
2. Long range communications set;
3. Improved life-support system;
4. Propulsion system with some kind of long-term freefall-compatable propellant;
5. New high-energy upper stage engine to achieve escape velocity.
With the LEO version of Dragon scheduled for 2016, I think a further 5 years is a reasonable time-scale for items 1-4, assuming that they can find funding for the work. Item 5 is a completely different ball-game; SpaceX’s lack of experience LH2 could make that be a 10-year project, assuming they could find R&D funding.
Items 1-3 look like just change of specs involving existing technology, not five year R&D projects.
Item 4, I’m guessing you mean something like the Apollo Service Module. Is that a five year R&D effort? Does Orion have a service module currently? I’ve read that the European ATV has been proposed as one. Five years to mate an ATV to a Dragon?
“5. New high-energy upper stage engine to achieve escape velocity …Item 5 is a completely different ball-game; SpaceX’s lack of experience LH2 could make that be a 10-year project…”
Isn’t this what RL-10s are for? Would it be a 10 year project to mate a Dragon with an RL-10? And that’s assuming that SpaceX is 10 years away from it’s Raptor, said to be currently in development.
grassrootsofone,
Not a valid comparison. The federal government poured endless money into Apollo whenever it was requested and did a lot to both subsidize and reprioritize industry activities in order to make Apollo happen. That can never be done again, especially considering the current debt. Also, Apollo ran on the heals of Mercury and Gemini, and their sole purpose was to teach us what was necessary to do Apollo. Those two projects represent half a decade of intense investment and activity for the sole purpose of developing understanding and capability needed for Apollo. So unless we were able to do something equivalent again this time around, there can be absolutely no meaningful comparison between then and now. Sorry.
Steve
“… no meaningful comparison between then and now.”
That’s right, there’s no meaningful comparison:
-Those times were primitive. It was all new to them, all new technology. Now the physics are known and the components are off-the-shelf from suppliers like Sierra Nevada Corp.
-For R&D prototyping, you can go from gigahertz speed 3D modeling to laser cutting in a few mouse clicks.
-It is true, however, that good slide rules are harder to find these days.
Countless satellites have been built for BEO environments and communications with less than five years from project start to launch. MSL was understandably an exception, with 7.5 years from initial design to launch.
Sorry, but you fail to convince that there’s any special BEO magic that Orion has that isn’t just a few, possibly off-the-shelf spec changes for Dragon and CST-100.
SIr, the government did not “pour endless money” into Apollo when needed. The budget was fought over every year, NASA rarely got all it wanted, the program came close to cancellation several times, some features were foregone because of cost, and some major cutbacks were made. NASA and its contractors persevered, backed by Presidential leadership.
While it is true that BEO manned missions do not seem to be a top priority of the White House I would like to point out that the Orion is a completely new system. Comparing it to Apollo is like comparing a modern day car to a model T. The heat shield is of new materials and manufacture, the radiation resistence and the avionics are all of new designs and concepts. The astronauts will have more room per person for four people vs the Apollo for three people. It will look like the apollo caspule but that is as far as it goes.
Ralphy,
Just to add a point to to your post, a lot of people seem to forget that the velocities and decelerations involved in BEO missions are significantly higher than for existing LEO hardware. Every technology has its operational thresholds, so it is often the case that a simple change of spec, or a size upgrade will not be capable of meeting the higher requirements, therefore newer technologies, sometimes not yet existing technologies, are required. And new tech is one of the hardest things of all for which to accurately predict cost and schedule. When we’re looking at new science, it takes as long as it takes, and costs as much as it costs, and any projections are purely guesswork.
Steve
New? It was all done a half century ago.
You’re talking about a heat shield like it was a VASIMR or something.
And g-forces are easily modeled in computers these days.
Just a quick point, the heat shield on Orion is not at all new. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hq…
Quote taken from your link:
In partnership with the material subcontractor, Textron Defense Systems of
Wilmington, Mass., Lockheed Martin will continue development of the material for
Orion. While Avcoat was selected as the better of the two candidates, more
research is needed to integrate it completely into Orion’s design.
Ralph, the republicans control the house ways and means committee, when you control that .. you control both the Nation’s checkbook and credit card.
If republicans wanted us on the moon, they could have put us there in 2000 when Bush had a 200 billion surpus.
So do not say … the whitehouse … like it is just this President. If republicans wanted NASA to do more they could easy get it funded with minimul trade offs to get it done.
The problem is, what SpaceX does for 400 million it takes 4 billion for NASA. So when they come around hat in hand for increases other congressional members are not sympathic because they know how much is pork.
More and more are coming on board for commercializing and industrializing space and end the NASA monopoly.
“More and more are coming on board for commercializing and industrializing space and end the NASA monopoly.”
What monoply?
“BEO Dragon is hypothetical. Even if SpaceX go ahead, it isn’t likely in less time than Orion…2021 for its’ first crewed flight.”
Even if that were true, and SpaceX amazingly cannot make a few, already planned modifications to Dragon, in more than the time it took to develop it so far, BEO Dragon could still come along and supplant the Orion before any significant missions were undertaken.
The CST-100 is not designed for BEO missions. End of story.
“The CST-100 is not designed for BEO missions. End of story.
That’s just it. CST-100 is just an Apollo shaped capsule, and if Orion-2014 currently doesn’t have its deep-space characteristics then that’s all it is as well.
And, going forward from there, it might be just as easy to make the CST deep-space worthy as it is for the Orion, perhaps easier (and cheaper). In that case it would not be “end of story”, but a whole new controversy about comparative costs, schedules, capabilities, etc.
Manned CST-100 is scheded for 2015, I believe.
The Orion is designed for BEO re-entry. It will have a special heat shield for this purpose. It will use this heat shield in the 2014 test when it is sent over 3,000 miles out in orbit. IIRC the Orion will also have higher radiation resistence as well in order to protect human passengers in the 2017 test. The launch in 2014 will be with a Delta IV. NASA also is in the process of human rating the Atlas V. So, if the SLS is cut there will be other rockets to launch the Orion. I would also like to have the capability of the Falcon Heavy to launch the Orion. But that is up to Elon Musk to decide if he wants to do that especially if he develops his BEO Dragon. Only time will tell. But it seems to me that giving his clients multiple options would be a good way to make more money.
WOW Ralph, what do you do for a living, write new ad copy for products that have been around for decades and want a facelift?
“A special heatshield” Wow you mean not the old special heatsheild material we used to goto the moon 40 years ago or the new and improved heatshield now with X?
We are not sending a human mission to the center of a star. We have the tech for materials to handle this, for decades. do not try and pass it off as if NASA has to reinvent the wheel.
“WOW Ralph, what do you do for a living, write new ad copy for products that have been around for decades and want a facelift?”
And what do you do for a living other asking loaded questions in a rude manner?
1. What will this mean for space policy? The Obama administration slashed the NASA budget and I think they’ll maintain the status quo.
2. Will they have a new administrator? Yeah, I think Charlie’s appointment is just a stepping stone in his career, he’s now “in the system” and he’ll keep on getting appointed up the ladder. I expect a new NASA admin within the next 6 months.
3. If so, who? Well, another yes man like Charlie for starters. It certainly won’t be Neil Degrasse Tyson!
4. Should NASA’s budget be increased? It should, but it won’t until the GOP takes over in Jan, 2017.
5. Should there be more commercial focus? I think there already is a lot of focus but yeah, there should be more focus. The more companies competing the better.
6. Does the Planetary Science Budget need to be increased? After the JWST debacle I just don’t know how to answer this question. I’ll just say that NASA needs to steer away from Mars and come up with bolder and more imaginative missions. I’d like to see a Lunar rover at the pole searching for water ice. I’d like to see landers on Enceladus and Europa looking for signs of life. I’d like to see probes orbiting Uranus and Neptune, similar to Galileo and Cassini. But alas, JWST ate up everything and none of this is going to happen.
7. Will Congress be more or less cooperative with the White House? Maintain status quo, which is currently abysmal.
8. Thoughts? These are the post Shuttle doldrums folks, it is a necessary evil but it should have never got this bad. NASA’s goal is to get out of LEO but the HST budget got slashed in half so all that’s left now is a jobs program, just to keep certain politicians happy. I think it’s a shame that the previous and current administration never fully funded the lunar program. It would be out of LEO and on another world and we need to work out the ISRU kinks and we need to know more about the Lunar ice at the poles. The moon is only 3 days away and we would always be learning stuff as we go along. But no, we never funded it in the first place and Obama finished her off. Now we’re going NOWHERE. We’re not going to the moon, we’re not going to Mars, and we’re NOT going to some stupid asteroid. The NASA astronauts will prolly NOT go into space AT ALL in the next ten years! And if they do, guess where they’ll be going?
Yep, they’ll be going to LEO.
Considering the bi-partisan concerns about the deficit and demands to balance the Federal budget, NASA has faired better than many agencies. Sure the space community wants big increases, but a flat budget of $17.7 B provides adequate funding to do many things. There is no evidence to support your assertion that NASA’s budget would increase under the GOP. Read the history. The Agency’s budget will increase when the President and Congress agree on compelling missions that respond to National needs and priorities.
Please show me one statement from Mr. Romney stating clearly that the NASA budget would be increased if he were elected. Also please explain how this could be done while making the massive budget cuts needed to eliminate the deficit, cut taxes, and increase defense spending. It’s particularly egregious to blame the administration for the cuts in the NASA budget forced on it by the GOP House.
The Republicans can’t blame the Administration for lack of progress when in reality they have used every resource at their disposal to obstruct progress, e.g. slashing the request for Commercial Crew by over 50%.
You’ve got it in a nutshell.
During one of the early Republican primary debates, they were all specifically asked that question and how many of them would cut NASA funding, ALL of them raised their hand, including Gov. Romney.
In budget terms .. define “slashed”?
Can you show me the actual numbers? How much in each portfolio? You know, What was it getting previously, how much did the President request, How much did the House Authorize, How much did the Senate? How much did the House appropriate? What was the final reconcillation amount?
Once you provide all those numbers, show me who “slashed” what and what is the dollar amount, relative to that portfolio, equals slashed.
In terms of actual effects on space policy, I think that a second Obama term will be most notable for the loss of four years of lead time on SLS applications. The Administration isn’t keen on large HSF projects and SLS was only adopted as a political compromise. However, I doubt that the President would be willing to put his name behind a big-spending national space project; it just isn’t something he likes on an ideological level. Without that, I doubt Congress would have enough internal unity and cohesion to force through a realistic (note that word) SLS application that is likely to be funded. Expect SLS to run onto a sandbank because no-one can agree on what EM-3 and after should be.
In other areas, I think that commercial HSF will continue as it is now but there will be no major efforts to decide what happens in 2020 when ISS is up for renewal or cancellation. HSF’s drift will mean further in-fighting and back-biting inside NASA. The agency’s balkanisation into squabbling centre-level or even narrower interests will make it harder to push forward major projects.
In terms of robotic exploration, don’t expect any flagship-class missions but I imagine that, unless there is a total massacre of the budget, discovery- and smaller class missions will continue to be slowly developed and launched. Major missions to the Outer Planets and even Mars are less likely though.
any science project that would utilize the SLS would cost billions.. my bet 10 billion minimum. A hubble optical replacement with a 10 meter lens? you think that would cost a billion? More like a billion a year? If you only wanted to launch it once a year, you will need a dozen projects in the pipeline each gettting a billion a year?
SLS is going to get chopped just as soon as commercial space is a done deal… That would seem like the best deal the space states could get
“give us our pork for X years until spaceX or boeing flys or we shut down all your pork projects”
Re the Marine Birthday Ball, I am ex-Navy but I know that there is no such thing as an ex-Marine. Once a Marine, always a Marine. Enjoy the party, General Charlie. Fare forward, NASA.
Marines who are dishonourably discharged are “ex-Marines”. The others are “former Marines”.
Bolden should go.He supports private workers not NASA workers.He is a right winger and thinks NASA workers are not as good a worker as private.He has moved so far right,he has gone around the World and is coming up on the left.He did put on a big show yesterday giving out awards to NASA workers,that means nothing.Not a substitute for giving NASA workers a mission to build a launcher and crewed spacecraft.Mission control gave out some awards for the CRS-1,but Bolden only mentioned SpaceX not these people.They did a lot of Dragon moving.PAO did not show or talk to the workers about this at all.Obama can not be accused of an Oct. Surprise,so no reason not to buy a lot of Aluminum and start on a sheet metal launcher.Canada makes a lot of Al. and might make a deal with them.They may want to get in on the project.Just think, NASA for the first time in their history would build their own launcher and crewed spacecraft.Time to do something new and for the price of material too!This would speed up the time of our own people on our own rocket.Ares-1X was 3 years.So 2016 before the Iran waiver runs out.The only way to speed up our space program.Private companies just keep upping the price.
They could use the J-2 engine.It puts out as much as the Merlin but weighs much more.Maybe SpaceX cut so much material,that it was not strong enough.
Text wall, jumbled thought, random accusations, baseless claims and general discoherence. Anything that I overlooked?
I know .. i was wondering someone forgot their morning pill. NASA should not be in the launch business. business is for business not the gov. .. so that puts an end to the nonsense.
I’d like to hear an elaboration on your J-2 vs Merlin engine comparison…
Overall, I don’t see much change in NASA due to the election results. Congress is still split, so I don’t see the potential for new big initiatives. The budget situation hasn’t changed, so you can’t expect any budget increases. Budgets could be moved around, but there’s not a whole lot that can be cut.
http://www.foxnews.com/scie…
With the overall background of not expecting big changes, small changes can be significant. The commercial space initiative has been producing good results, so assuming that continues (and, most importantly, no catastrophic failures) we will move away from depending on the Russians for launch, and with luck the price of launches may go down, which will make it a little easier to fly missions on limited budgets.
there is a lot that could be cut. Just depends on who’s ox you want to gore.
SLS orion if you are against monster rockets and instead want commercial fuel stations and space based vehicles like Nautilus X
if you are anti climate change cut everything for earth observation and climate studies and satellites.
Does the “Fiscal Cliff” and budget cuts provide for a BRAC-ing of NASA centers? Who knows.
Could SLS end up derailed or put into a more competitive bidding framework? Interesting thought, abet frightening for old-line aerospace companies.
Hopefully, space policy will be more about a policy for space instead of re-litigating the decision to abandon the Griffin “no center / contractor left behind” architecture, which was not sustainable from a program or budget perspective – but had enough goodies to build a diverse political constituency that had some stickiness.
My hope (and expectation) is that space policy in the second term will move to a broader consideration as to how a total technology and infrastructure development program and policy can be built that cross leverages defense, commercial payloads, science and human space flight capabilities and requirements.
There are opportunities to link into the administration’s broader technology based economic development / industry growth goals (especially advanced manufacturing) if we stop treating space (especially NASA) as a regional entitlement. The fly-by’s of the retired shuttles show that America feel’s national ownership of this enterprise – the space constituencies need to move beyond the “small ball” zero sum games we have become famous (infamous?) for. Space needs to become more about initiating new enterprises as opposed to extending old programs.
It’s funny how it has become that the moon is for republicans and Mars is for democrats. I saw your post up above about needing a moon program, and true to form you followed up.
Do you really think Obama’s Mars goal, or the emphasis on COTS, were because he needed Florida?
It’s not about how much money NASA has – it’s about what it does with it. Throwing it all on rocket development is not going to do us any good.
All of NASA’s budget needs to go towards mission development, and rocketry should now be handled as a competitive business.
NASA can build, at cost plus, rockets or NASA can have astronauts in space.
Pick one.
Given a flatline budget projection and a mandated Senate Launch System, NASA’s current plan is to end support to the International Space Station in 2020, with that money being shifted to Exploration Missions. NASA should get a budget increase sufficient to maintain the ISS at least through 2028, and to fully fund human exploration of asteroids. Asteroids are a real threat to Earth and we desperately need to know more about them. Let commercial entities exploit the Moon – they have the technology and the incentive.
NASA would not need a budget increase, other than inflation, they could just run the same numbers for the ISS that there were in 2020. Unless the funds for a splashed ISS is already planned for something else.
TMK there is no plan to end support for the ISS, and to do so would be a bad descision. ISS is not a footstep in space, it is a foothold. If we give it up, we will be stuck on the ground. If we cannot be productive in LEO we certainly cannot be productive on the moon or Mars, where costs will be far higher.
Hopefully there will be a renewed push to cancel SLS. Shelby is still there, but the gains by Democrats will most assuredly dampen his influence. Nelson, another proponent, managed to hold onto his seat. However, Obama may not be as beholden to him as in 2008. In any event, NASA should get back to working technology, and leave the launch business to industry. The next few successful ISS missions by Space-X and others will put more nails into SLS’s coffin. Now we just need an Administrator that can give it a final kick so it falls into its grave.
sch220,
I like your thinking, but let’s not forget that we still have the Wolf and Hall types in the subcommittees making pork-based, Cold War thinking decisions to get rid of. The old world and anti-science members on the science committees have, I believe, done more to slow progress and waste time and money than anybody else in the system. Exactly the wrong type of people have been in these positions of power for far too long.
Steve
Thats what I have been saying for months that who has control of congress matters more than who will be president. I have a feeling the subcommittees will be just about the same as they were prior to the election (unfortunately)
Pardon me for intruding on all the hifalutin policy and budgetary arguments… but the Marine Ball is in San Francisco, not Hawaii. I wonder if he will use the opportunity to see all the commercial innovation occurring in/around NASA Ames…
Actually Bolden will be at the Hawaii one.
There is usually a Marine Corps Ball wherever there is a unit of battalion size or bigger. I Served with 3rd Marine Regiment in Kaneohe Bay, HI and we always had the best USMC balls when I was there.
Sure glad we didn’t change horses 🙂
That explains the lather!
Griffin?
Ha, ha, just joking. Don’t shoot!
Whoever is administrator, at least we won’t have Griffin trying to do a U-turn on everything.
With budget cuts, SLS will be in the same position as Constellation – not enough money, timelines dragged out, finally cancelled. Unfortunately, the Usual Suspects (and their lobbying supporters amongst the Usual Suspect contractors) will say “It’s the law – you can’t cancel it”.
I’d like NASA to go back to the original 2009/2010 plans – no SLS; new technology development; more private space. (Deep down, I’d like NASA to decide what they wan’t to have, and then ask Musk to build it…)
‘With budget cuts, SLS will be in the same position as Constellation – not enough money, timelines dragged out, finally cancelled. Unfortunately, the Usual Suspects (and their lobbying supporters amongst the Usual Suspect contractors) will say “It’s the law – you can’t cancel it”.’
Re “you can’t cancel it”, people may try to make others believe that, but that “law” was a budget matter which only enforces the spending of money which the President agreed to. The “law” cannot tell future legislators how they must vote on future budget items, cannot tell the POTUS what he must request in his future budget requests, cannot tell the POTUS that he can’t veto future allocations for the project, and cannot tell legislators that they cannot simply repeal that original “law”.
I see at least one more term for SLS & Orion. Congress isn’t going fall down easy on the first Spaceship they designed. They will gladly a pull a few billion out the budget to kill other projects but their golden boys will hang in there a while. Expect Congress to continue to chop Commercial Space and sweep it under the rug.
As a true proponent of space exploration I want a heavy lift vehicle and a robust capsule in our toolkit. Just not this design, built with these contractors, they have locked in their price point at 3/4 to 1 billion a launch. It will drag the budget down every year it operates, with little money left for the mission, whatever it would be.
I also don’t think SLS or Orion can survive by themselves as a stand alone project. Have we ever spent half or a quarter of NASA’s budget on a Module that can’t do anything by itself? Right now these 2 are being ghosted together as a complete system and that is the only way these 2 are going to keep alive in the long run.
So which line should we stand behind and cheer?
Small discovery class projects? YES! Right now they are the best value we get out of NASA. They are also the little known projects that are the first to get the budget Axe.
Big Budget long term projects? Sad to say, NO. We are at a turning point in technology with Commercial Space. We need to pause a few years on the big projects and then see what we could buy from commercial sector. Their prices keep going down and whats being offered expands every year.
I would love to see a year of just small gateway discovery class projects. flybys, mini rovers maybe a sample return or two. We need another infusion of discovery’s to guide our big missions. During this time Commercial Space will be showing its oats and the retail shelves will begin filling up with options.
Then finally we will have the space program of our dreams. Little routine projects, go up for bid. Large projects we piece meal with Award Based Fixed Price, never over budget and no sucuess, no pay. Every unused NASA owned piece of equipment and structures up for rent. The workforce? Keepum, the salary’s are a drop in the bucket. Use them as the designers for the main projects, the hardware testers and advisers to Commercial Companies. They can also do what they do best, build some of the modules, the rovers and the probes that would not be cheaper off the shelf. NASA would still be alive with a workforce that has the Dream, the right stuff. We got to keep those guys happy and show the new workforce that they can have a life long job at NASA.
We would come full circle from the days when a paper rocket designer was frowned upon. To the point where a smart man with a sheet of paper and price list, can make the project of our dreams.
end rant
I nominate Lori Garver. Not much charisma, but she knows that if human spaceflight is ever to serve any useful purpose it has to be available to a lot more than half a dozen people at a lot less than $20M per seat to LEO, a problem that did not occur to Mike Griffin. Also, she will have the full support of the president.
I hope Congress continues with its plan to remove NASA from being dictated to by any president of the USA. Then it can get on with what it does best. Explore space.
The plan proposed by Congress was not to “let NASA do what it does best”. The bill takes control of NASA away from the president and gives it to Congress, so that Congress would have complete authority to manipulate NASA so as to benefit its own clients and special interests.
James,
Have you ever read the NASA Charter? It was created by Congress, and it specifically states that NASA, through the NASA Administrator, will report to and take direction from the President (not Congress). It also says that once a year, in May, the President will make a report to Congress on NASA’s activities and progress for the year. If you read the official histories, you’ll see that this setup worked quite well most of the time — until certain members of Congress took it upon themselves to start micromanaging NASA activities (in the name of pork), bypassing the President and in defiance of their own legislation (the law). As per the Charter, Congress is responsible for approving and allocating the NASA budget, but they in fact have absolutely no authority over the management or work details of any NASA programs.
Please, don’t make the mistake of thinking that what Congress has been doing with respect to NASA over the last decade is the way things are supposed to be. They’re not. Congress has been way out of line, ignoring its own legislation and therefore, by definition, breaking the law. If you follow the paper trail and the meeting minutes, it becomes clear quite readily that certain members of Congress have been the most obstructive force imaginable in terms of impeding NASA’s progress and interfering with NASA’s program selections and implementations. And then they had the disgusting gull to put NASA, and specifically its Administrator, in the hot seat in public, blaming him for their illogical mandates, and challenging him to explain why certain decisions (that they made!) were made. They even had the nerve to ask him in full public view what SLS was going to be used for. They dreamed the stupid thing up and then asked Bolden what it’s for.
So James, I’m afraid you have it exactly backwards about who has been dictating to NASA and keeping it from doing the things it does well. The President tried to accomplish certain things with NASA over the last four years, as was his responsibility by law. Whether his plans were good or bad never became as issue because Congress obstructed his efforts at almost every turn — purely out of political spite. It is to President Obama’s credit that he didn’t simply employ the Presidential Veto every time this happened (unlike his predecessor who overused it to get his own way). Congress is the culprit you should be trying to get out of NASA’s way, not the President.
Steve
PS: I am not an American; I’m Canadian, so I can honestly say that what I’m saying is not a Republican or Democrat viewpoint, but rather an objective assessment from someone who has followed NASA closely for decades.
An excellent post but I will take a small exception. President Bush didn’t use the Veto pen once in his first term. He was signing spending bills with 7000 earmarks. He wanted his war funding.
In his second term he vetoed 12 times. Fairly low. Reagan, another big spending liberal only vetoed 15 times in two term and quadrupled the national debt. Bush’s father vetoed 44 times in a single term and Clinton vetoed 37 times in two terms.
President Obama has vetoed twice in his first term. Personally I would have been more agressive with it.
Isn’t congres the one that always bully NASA and intefere with “exploring space” by designing monstrous porkrockets to nowhere on NASA dime while cutting budget?
If human spaceflight is to serve any useful purpose the first requirement is a practical way for people to get to LEO. This requires at least a factor of ten reduction in cost. Abset such technology, we do not have the money to keep flying people at taxpayer expense. We need ISS as a terminal for the Earth-to-LEO shuttle, and to keep together the team of rivals, which should include China.
I still believe there is better ways to achieve that without a direct funding approach. It would be like creating a product today, that industry can not take advantage of right away.
Fund those things that will increase flight rates so that it will be a competitive advantage for the first firm that develops it.
A couple Nautilus X’s flying to 3 space platform in GEO every few months would be a great way to achieve it.
Anyone that can launch can sell fuel at to commercial fuel station, NASA just buys bulk fuel from the station. Fuel station can buy, just like they do on earth, different loads at different prices then just sell it to NASA at the average price.
This automatically builds in competition amoung fuel suppliers to try and deliver as many disposable rocket launched loads as possible.
When the flight rate tipping point hits the point where it will pay to fund R&D for a product upgrade to reusablity it will happen.
This is more organic then forcing it in the meantime you are actually spending your funding on the infrastructure you need to take advantage of that reusability. It is a lot better bang for your buck senerio.
Keith, who would make you happy as NASA Administrator?
I am not interested in my opinions. I am interested in everyone else’s.
Paul Spudis for NASA Administrator in my opinion.
Then as for budget, NASA and all agencies get a 4% haircut each of the next 4 years. Not only NASA, but all agencies need to clean out the old and refocus. The only thing that does that is a long term budget reduction. 4% a year keeps it manageable, but the aggregate 15% will drive major changes and not business as usual.
If he would embrace commercial more.
Who was President Obama’s original choice? An Air Force guy I believe. He was very pro commercial space?
A tad high .. 500 – 800 million is my guess. SLS is gone, congress can keep the MPCV …. BUT … they have to rename it and it has to be launched on the Delta IV.
Republicans, led by Senator Shelby, chopped the NASA request of 400 million for commercial crew to 50 mil.
Hopefully NASA gets an upgrade from epic fail Bolden.
SLS needs to be cancelled for real. I think we al realize that is a pork barrel program. This is simply a jobs proogram at this point. There is no defined mission and no defined payload. Maybe the Presindets real space policy will be implemented this term. If you remmeber SLS was a huge compromise. NASA had defined its plans and SLS was not in it. Use the $1.8 B a year budget savings to cut the budget problems. If all government agencies would help cut the pork, maybe we can avoid being bankrupt as a nation before the next election. It is time to get serious about eliminating pork and cut the programs that make little sense. SLS surely ranks high in that column, no mission, no payload no launch dates past 2021. Lets hope Lori Garver succeeds this time.