The Vision For Space Exploration at NASA Has Almost Disappeared
– Beyond the Moon: Inside Bush’s space plan (Part 1 of 3), 14 Jan 2004
– Beyond the Moon: Inside Bush’s space plan (part 2 of 3), 15 Jan 2004
– Beyond the Moon: Inside Bush’s space plan (Part 3 of 3), 16 Jan 2004
“The advantages were obvious. The new capsules would not require a huge new rocket like Apollo’s Saturn V — even though the Apollo capsules did. Instead, Bush’s planners proposed using existing U.S. commercial Delta IV and Atlas V rocket boosters — keeping the cost relatively low. Another way to enforce cost constraints was to hold open the possibility of using foreign boosters — something that horrified U.S. launch firms like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Missions to ISS would be followed by flights to high Earth orbit — above the Van Allen radiation belts — then to the moon for 14 days. The lunar experience would then be expanded, possibly with a lunar base until technologies needed to mount more ambitious missions were developed. NASA’s new moon ships also would carry a series of modules, propulsion stages and small cargo units that could be mixed and matched depending on the flight planned. One of the biggest drawbacks of the space shuttles has been their lack of flexibility. Designed for hauling large payloads and modules into space in their cavernous bays, they could not be reconfigured to bring up just a small amount of equipment. NASA has a space trucking fleet which new only one type of cargo: big.”
Keith’s note: In January 2004 Frank Sietzen and I broke the story about what would eventually become known as “The Vision for Exploration” in a series of articles in the Washington Times. We went on to write a non-bestseller “New Moon Rising” on the genesis of the VSE. It was an exciting time – one born out of the tragedy of Columbia’s loss. Everyone seemed to be moving in the same direction. Looking back, I just wonder what would have happened if the original plan had been implemented as it had originally emerged.
Had it done so, by now we’d have seen the emergence of a mix of government and commercial assets, perhaps fuel depots and other in-space infrastructure all designed to provide true flexibility as to when and how to go to places we wanted to go. The hardware to send humans back to the lunar surface would already be under construction.
Instead we got “Apollo on Steroids” followed by SLS, the big rocket to nowhere. 10 years later and we are still a decade or so away from even thinking about getting close to putting humans near a place such as the Moon. This is not progress. This is an embarrassment.
– A Decade of the Vision for Space Exploration: An Alternative Retrospective, Paul Spudis, earlier post
– Going Beyond The Status Quo In Space, Dennis Wingo, Paul Spudis, Gordon Woodcock, earlier post
Griffin was apparently the only one in NASA in the last 10 years who had legitimate leadership ability. Unfortunately he led everyone off a cliff.
What is funny-tragic is how the other top NASA people-many are still in place today- fell in step behind Griffin-and even til this day continue in the same direction. It would be embarassing today if the top NASA non-leaders declared we are heading nowhere and in order to head somewhere we need to stop the current madness and decide on a new, different path that is logical. None of these guys have the kahunas to stand up and lead today. What is really bad is that in about another ten years, when Orion and SLS are designed and ready to go, it will be far more embarassing and devastating to NASA that the railroad they will (hopefully) by then have created will be just about useless. They will have wasted a generation’s NASA budget to create useless tools.
I think back to the arguments about Shuttle in the 1970s. Brian O’Leary argued what would they fill the Shuttle with? Elephants? Shuttle at least advanced the state of the art and we learned a lot, particularly about operations costs. However it did require some creative engineering to keep the Shuttle filled at least until ISS was ready. Of course much of the current NASA non-leaders failed to recognize what we had learned and failed to try and grasp what we would lose if we shut Shuttle down without an attempt to capture that knowledge,
So now the same set of people ‘planning the next generation’s future’ is the same set of people that lost the last generation’s
advancements.
it’s funny / tragic that Congress has directed NASA to do things that it did not give them the funding to do.
Orion is a state-of-the-art spacecraft, without the supporting equipment (lunar lander, etc) that would enable it to do great things.
Sorry to disagree about Orion being state of the art. Its an oversized updated Apollo CM. It isuseful if all you aspire to are Apollo style missions. Apollo was not sustaiable or affordable when its cost was considerably less than what Orion is costing . And Apollos were built by the dozen. orion is a one-off. The management and production process is not state of the art even if the computer technology is updated since 1969.
That mention about the number of Orion capsules being built is an excellent one. How many capsules are envisioned to be built? How many long lead time items are being procured (if we know what they are)?
i would venture to guess that the number to be built would greatly depend on what missions Congress decides that NASA should do.
WRONG. Orion is state-of-the-art. other than its shape it is nothing like the Apollo CM. it will have the most advanced avionics, command, and control systems ever put in a spacecraft. it will have a glass cockpit like top-of-the-line aircraft. it will have an improved waste management system superior to that which was on the Shuttle, and it will use a Nitrogen / Oxygen blend for its atmosphere.
it is meant to be reusable, which will mean they don’t need to build dozens of them.
Seems to me that this is more top-of-the-range than state-of-the-art. These guys are building themselves a BMW.
For all its promise I think reusability is the wrong path, at least for now. I believe reusability inhibits evolutionary improvements and prevents revolutionary advancements. I’m also skeptical of the cost savings claims. Lastly, building a fleet of vehicles and then closing the factory in order to try to reach cost goals leads to further discontinuity in the ability to design,test and produce new vehicles. As proof of the aforementioned look at the shuttle–the original promise and the dark reality.
Yes, but there are parts of Orion that are not reusable, such as the Service Module and… we… everything except the re-entry vehicle. We are also not seeing mass production for those parts only a ‘one-off’ contract for one future mission.
Additionally, whether or not Orion is hypothetically reusable, water recovery will make that something that is a lot harder to achieve.
i’m not sure that mass-production of parts – that won’t be used for several years – will do much good. then you are stuck with a need to pay for storing them for several years.
unlike previous capsules, all the electronics for Orion will be within the pressure vessel, so a dunking in salt water isn’t going to damage the critical systems that make Orion work. yes, the heat shield and parachutes will need to be replaced, but other than that the core of the Orion spacecraft is reusable.
Now I would just have to simply say you have no clue what you are talking about. What are you doing-you just make this stuff up as you go?
You are worried about the expense of storing components? Are you clueless?
All the Apollo electronics were within the pressure vessel. All of the Apollos flew within a few years and most of the electronics changed very little. Except on an exception basis, nothing was reused. In the few cases where they did strip out components for reuse it did require full retest and recert and considerable added time and expense.
The heatshield is used during reentry. Since it literally burns away it will not be reused. It is exactly the same material and construction as used on Apollo, even made at the same place by the same company.
The parachutes are the least of anyone’s worries and a relatively small expense.
Numbers used: They are opening up an “assembly line”; average about one a year but that is only the CM. The SM is a trade with ESA for past Shuttle launch services. ESA is building 1 SM in place of what was to have been their final ATV.
i’m not worried about the expense of storing parts – i said that IF parts were mass produced now, they’d have to be stored for several years because there’s no use for the parts yet.
i’d like to see your source that says all of the Apollo electronics were inside the pressure vessel.
I worked on Apollo. I still have the manuals.
oh? that’s interesting. first hand knowledge, that’s hard to come by
sorry doug, but some of the PDUs (power/data distribution units) will be outside the pressure vessel. to cut down on the penetrations through the bulkhead/pressure vessel.
i’m not sure what a PDU is or where it is located on Orion.
there are I believe 4 PDUS outside the CM pressurized volume that handle power distribution as well as data/comm/command to the CM propellant system, ECLSS, MMUs, GPS and other hardware. not to mention all those assets that are outside the pressure vessel, but you go ahead and continue your nonsensical all electronics is inside the vehicle on Orion so it will be reusable and better than Apollo.
not to mention the Europeans have only agreed to provide service modules for 2 test flights so who is building the SM after that is TBD, but since there are no missions after that I guess we don’t need to worry about it yet.
what i’ve said is based on the information that i’ve heard before, i.e. that one of the reasons that Orion is reusable is that the electronics are housed inside the pressure vessel. your comment is the very first i’ve heard of some critical system not being housed therein.
you are giving me new information, on which i must now reasses that which i had previously thought. i appreciate that, but not your tone.
nonsensical? don’t be a dick. give me a break.
well seeing as the PDU’s outside the vehicle has been the design for over 3 years. you still clinging to some outdated notion of the vehicle is nonsensical.
they did a really bad job posting that information all over the internet, then.
better tell Lockheed Martin’s Orion deputy program manager, too.
“Larry Price, Lockheed Martin’s Orion deputy program manager, explained that Orion’s design locates the majority of these electronics not only in the crew module, but within the pressurized section of the crew module in which the astronauts ride. This chamber is able to withstand the vacuum of space, and will also serve to keep out salty ocean water upon returning to Earth.”
http://www.space.com/21541-…
Note that “majority” does not equal “all.”
Ah, thank you. The reading comprehension skills I learned in 3rd grade seem to have failed me … for the last time.
*force choke* Captain Obvious, Make ready to land our troops beyond their energy field, then deploy the fleet – so that nothing gets off the system. [Reading comprehension falls to the floor, dead]
You are in command now, Admiral Obvious.
Well, your snarkiness aside, you need to pay attention when using quotes to support your claims (in this case, that all electronics on Orion are sealed in the pressure vessel, especially when the quotes don’t support your claim whatsoever.
i thought it was very clever snark.
so my original statement is based on what i remembered from ages ago – that one of the ways Orion would be reusable is that the essential electronics of it are inside the pressure vessel.
the quote certainly does support that Orion is reusable.
i STILL don’t really know what a PDU is, or whether salt water will ruin it, or whether or not there’s any other critical systems not in the pressure vessel. hell, i don’t even know if a PDU is a critical system anyway, or if it’s expensive or cheap. i’m just taking this guy’s word that it’s some kind of electronic system that is mounted outside the pressure vessel.
if “majority” just means “more than half,” then what other electronics are outside the pressure vessel?
Orion will not be reusable as long as it lands in the ocean. You might be able to strip out some components, then retest and recertify them, although the past history is that if you have to go to the trouble of retesting and recertifying then its likely its is cheaper just to build it new.
Because the Orion contract is so mismanaged and so expensive they are building only one at a time. There is not even an agreement with ESA to provide more than a single service module. That component does not even come home for reuse. So Hug Dug is wrong-he is probably drinking some of that marketing Kool-Aid that the Orion Lockheed people would have you believe.
Hug Dug is also intimating that because of its electronics, this is why Orion is state of the art. He is wrong about this on 2 counts. First whatever electronics was selected for CDR will be 2 generations or more behind once it starts to fly. And the follow on vehicles will be even further behind that since they are only being built one every year or two. He is also wrong because the entire concept of a throw away Apollo-type approach is not sustainable; so, far from state of the art, it will be a lost cause even now, long before it flies.
Its a little like the Wright recreators designing and building a modern day Wright Flyer. Instead of the 4hp Wright motor, we have a 200 hp Honda. Instead of hemlock spars we used aluminum. Now this airplane will really get off the ground….but a 747 or Concorde, or V22 its not. It will still only carry the one guy lying prone on the lower wing. In the case of Orion it is still a sortie vehicle that loses most of itself through the course of the mission. It is an Apollo on steroids, redux.
“Orion will not be reusable as long as it lands in the ocean.” and your basis for that assertion is?
unlike previous capsules, all the electronics for Orion will be within the pressure vessel, so a dunking in salt water isn’t going to damage the critical systems that make Orion work. yes, the heat shield and parachutes will need to be replaced, but other than that the core of the Orion spacecraft is reusable.
Orion is currently state of the art. there aren’t any spacecraft out there with better systems. that’s just all there is to it.
you keep saying Orion is throw-away. it’s not. just because you keep repeating it doesn’t make it true.
so what if it’s Apollo on steroids? THAT’S WHAT WE NEED TO EXPLORE DEEP SPACE.
Why do you think that Orion is a deep space exploration craft? Its not. You might be able to repeat an Apollo mission except that you still need an SM and a LM.
The most the Orion CM can do is reenter from lunar or planetary speeds. However what this implies is that you have to throw the entire spacecraft away every time it is used. The Orion cone-shaped capsule is a small fraction of any deep space exploration craft and it is totally unneeded since Dragon can do everything Orion is being designed for.
So what does a deep space exploration craft look like? Take a look at the ISS. ISS is a good start. It has many of the features of a deep space exploration craft. Adapt elements and systems being tested on ISS for deep space exploration and for lunar and planetary exploration. That is how to make progress using systems and hardware and people already available. Put the development money being wasted on Orion and SLS into advanced deep space propulsion systems and landers.
anything beyond Earth orbit is deep space. ergo, a return to the Moon is a return to deep space.
yes, they would need a landing module of some sort. pity that got cancelled along with the rest of Constellation.
Dragon is still designed for LEO only.
Orion does not fit into a sustainable architecture, nor do many of the ISS solutions.
——
BrianM2525 “So what does a deep space exploration craft look like? Take a look at the ISS. ISS is a good start.”
Hug Doug: “anything beyond Earth orbit is deep space. ergo, a return to the Moon is a return to deep space.”
——
The moon has NOTHING to do with travel to Mars (1/6 th g vs microg, full GCR vs half, a few days vs the year round trip and landing heavy objects on Mars) ISS is protected by the earth’s magnetic field, so GCR protection is minimal.
“Orion gives us about a 21-day capability; now that is obviously a short time, but what is missing in that is that we will eventually have to develop what we call the habitat module, or ‘the habitat.’ The astronauts would stay in this for the longer-duration missions, and Orion would be attached to the habitat. It would remain ‘quiet’ (essentially powered-down) once we got the astronauts to the habitat,
and it would be reactivated once we needed to get the astronauts back home.” Dumbacher
http://www.americaspace.com…
The radiation shielding consists of about 2 gm/cm2 of mass, similar to ISS and Orion. For a habitat size for mars, 2 g/cm2 is about 2 mT. Unfortunately, increasing the passive shielding by a factor of 10 beyond ISS and Orion does not solve the problem for a year long trip. Why would the habitat need the ability for significant on orbit maintenance?
Bottom Line: NASA needs a capsule to travel to LEO, a resuable transit vehicle from L2 staging point to LEO, and no capsule should head to Mars.
define “sustainable”
I never said that the Moon had anything to do with travel to Mars. they are indeed very different places with different attending challenges.
Bottom Line: NASA is paying 3 companies to develop manned transportation to LEO. and what good is a transit vehicle that only travels from LEO to L2?
If it would be cheaper to build it new, then congress will vote to have more jobs created in their district and have the parts rebuilt and recertified and NOT built new.
-“Of course much of the current NASA non-leaders failed to recognize what we had learned and failed to try and grasp what we would lose if we shut Shuttle down without an attempt to capture that knowledge”
The insight presented in the this sentence speaks volumes.
-“Unfortunately he led everyone off a cliff”
It will be shown that Griffin clearly understood the http://en.wikipedia.org/wik… and the amount of time required to capture that knowledge. Since the program was in operation for decades, its a wonder why it took yet another decade for design knowledge capture, which again, correctly explain.
-“I worked on Apollo. I still have the manuals.”
“The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.”
Special thanks for the meeting the challenge of placing crew on the moon before the decade is out and sharing this information for the next generation. Shuttle certainly had many creative engineering solutions, indeed, including thrust oscillation and SSME stability, to name but a few. Apollo 13 especially provided great insight into problem solving with numbers and how to plan and design an architecture for other destinations.
It’s both sad and predictable that the country has not been able to get its act together on any human space program beyond ISS and Shuttle. It’s sad because I think we will regret wasting the time, energy, talent, and treasure with little that is of real use to show or to build upon. It’s predictable because the core rationale for human space is not strongly related to any obvious compelling need.
The country has had a decade to try to get its act together. I’d suggest that the whole US human space program take a timeout (defer a decision on ISS extension for now). Stop work on all new developments. I don’t think we can in good conscience continue the charade.
“rationale” for human space?
Let’s talk rationale for the Mars 2020 rover, which is really just a JPL jobs program to hold them over until Mars Sample Return becomes the too-big-to-fail flagship project of the late 2020s.
Let’s talk rationale for the JWST. Is there, for any possible reason, rationale for the $8.9 billion space telescope that only exists in it’s present form because a launcher with a sufficient diameter did not exist, and whose technologies are basically a one-off?
Let’s talk rationale for INSIGHT, a stationary lander whose only gimmick is a drill that Curiosity should have had, or JUNO, aka 5 years of travel, 1 year of science, for 1 billion dollars. Why the heck was THAT allowed to happen?
I agree and disagree with parts of what you’ve said, but you’re changing the topic. Also, on human spaceflight, the order of magnitude of the direct cost and opportunity cost of what might be done in others is staggering. Human space needs to stand on its own merit. It does not, in my opinion.
AMG40; You feel there is a need to justify Manned space flight? How ’bout the NEED to ensure the survival of the Human race? That should be reason enough! Or are you a Non Carbon based life form? By establishing the ability to live on the Moon, Mars & throughout the Asteroid belt will help us as we work to eventually build the ability to travel to the gas giants and beyond. Yes, we will need robotic craft to help make this happen, but to say that there is no merit for manned space flights is, well head in the sand short sighted beyond belief.
Dallas, I hear ya on saving the human race, but I don’t think that justification has connected with the general public or many decision makers. We are a society that seems to procrastinate a lot.
There is manned space exploration and unmanned space exploration. There is no third type (unless you count computer simulations of astrophysical phenomenon).
Honestly it comes down to personal opinion. I think a Manned Mars program would be important and worth every dollar. Similarly, I think a Mars unmanned rover program is worth every dollar so long as it is making serious steps to ascertaining if life exists (or existed) there, or is being a pathfinder to a manned mission.
By contrast a Mars rover that is purely Martain geology research program, because (hypothetically) the scientific consensus is that Mars is a dead world that while it could support life, it never arose, is not worth any money at all.
Going to Mars for rocks that may hold life? Worth it. Going to Mars for rocks to examine atmospheric weathering? Not worth a cent. That’s great secondary science, on a payload of something else, but not a reason for it to exist.
This rationale can be applied to manned exploration. Go big or go home, which is why I am strongly against the ISS. Building of it was an historically important achievement. But as a National Laboratory it’s utterly unremarkable and without significant achievement to be worth the investment.
There is more to the science of geology than just searching for life. Studying the geology of Mars can among other things help us to understand how Mars formed, which is another piece of the puzzle in understanding how our solar system formed, which is another piece of the puzzle in understanding how all planetary systems in the universe formed.
Maybe you can make a case that searching for life is more interesting or more important than understanding planetary formation, but I don’t agree that any other science is not worth a cent.
Oh don’t get me wrong. It’s interesting. It’s very, very interesting science.
Just not $2 billion mission interesting.
Space exploration / Planetary science will always be more expensive than a biological science research program. Even a major one. It costs what, “just” a billion dollars for a pharmaceutical to develop a compound and get it to market? But they;re typically aiming for the compounds that will make the biggest impact.
A two billion dollar rover that makes major impact on the biggest questions about Mars – the questions of life, past, present and future – is worth it. But purely “geology” oriented rovers? If anything, they should be back to the Mars Pathfinder level. Martian geologic science is worth million invested. Not billions. And more importantly, and this is the lesson frm the JWST: it isn’t worth what DOESN’T get funded because it exists.
We all have a broad idea what Mars Sample Return will look like. We all have a general idea of the mission complexity and the costs. Does anyone else looking at it see how it could easily become the to-big-to-fail JWST-esque program of the late 2020s? Which coincidentally will be at the same time JWST shuts down and there is a push for ATLAST? And with the manned space program’s new systems maturing at that point?
The budget crunch will be immense. It also can be avoided by being frank about why are going to Mars. Are we going to Mars with robots to keep JPL in the business of doing something they’ve mastered? Are we afraid of losing the capability of it, that we’re holding onto it for dear life at the expense of alternative programs?
If we’re going to Mars really just for the geology, why is Europa not the priority, because they are in competition for dollars? That’s the salient question. Its a question that needs to be answered before the Mars 2020 rover launches without a rationale other than keeping the lights on until Mars Sample Return.
Why are we going to Mars? we’re going to Mars to learn more about Mars. really, it’s that simple. Mars is the most Earthlike of the planets in our solar system, we can learn more about how the Earth formed by studying Mars than by studying any other planet. Mars still has a lot more we can learn from it. Mars is interesting. Mars is easily accessible and missions can be sent there every two years.
by the way, probably the best way to answer the question of whether or not there’s life on Mars is a sample return mission.
Europa, however, is NOT accessible, requiring long transit times to get there. mission opportunities are few. it’s not Earthlike. a mission there would require a lander with a transmitter that can survive in the very high radiation flux of Jupiter for many years, it needs a means to get through the ice crust to the ocean, and the kicker is a requirement for a very sophisticated robotic submarine exploration vehicle. this mission will cost in the billions, if not tens of billions (talk about a budget crunch for an exploration mission!!) – we’re probably not yet to the level of robotic AI a submarine robot would need to have to explore the Europan ocean on its own, and the technology to drill or bore through its ice (again, completely autonomously) doesn’t exist yet. that’s the biggest reason why we’re not going to Europa. it’s a far, far more challenging target than Mars is.
you’ve forgotten that NASA did, in fact, go to Mars to search for life: Viking 1 and 2. guess what? they didn’t find any, and NASA’s Mars exploration program was put on hold nearly 20 years.
the lesson here is to NEVER tie your program to goals that, when you FAIL to meet those goals, completely derails your program.
is it worth it to study Mars’ rocks and atmosphere? YES. they will be able to answer questions about past life on Mars, if there ever was any there, or if there’s any there now once they’ve better constrained what Mars is like at present. studying the past geology on Mars? worth every penny, because now we will have context for whatever we might find in the future.
There remain those, including those who worked on the Viking program, that reject those conclusions, but that is another topic entirely.
And I’m saying, that putting Mars exploration on hold for 20 years after Viking was in no way shape or form a bad thing.
Reading this website, the common thread is fear of loss of capability. Maybe the unstable budget and political commitment situation across the decades have conditioned that behavior, but it’s not a desirable one.
The day may come, when the ISS is deorbited, that man will not have a permanent presence in space anymore.
The day may come that America has no JPL rovers on Mars.
The day may come that when Hubble eventually fails, we’ll lose the ability to produce visual spectrum deep space observasions from orbit as Hubble has.
The day will come very soon, where there is no orbiter around Saturn.
The day came that America has no national manned launch capability at the present.
All of these… every single one of these… is absolutely okay – SO LONG AS – they are treated as an opportunity cost to something larger.
If we abandon Mars robotic exploration, because Europa becomes more promising as a target for the search for life, that’s entirely fine.
We gave up the Shuttle, in part, because the promise of it’s successor is superior.
The Space Science community has long since thrown in their lot with the JWST, really a successor to Spitzer than Hubble, and the loss of Hubble’s capabilities are a small price to pay for what else the JWST can do.
You’re basically making an argument for perpetuation for prepetuation’s sake. That’s not how science or technology works. A dead end is a dead end. If Mars is a dead end for the search for life – and it probably is at this point – then it should be treated as such. It should get what is fair for a pure planetary geology mission, which is Discovery Class missions, rather than Flagship ones.
But what is on the docket for the next 15 years? A Flagship level 2020 Rover and the sample return mission, which will be JWST level expensive.
I see an issue of honest use of dollars. It’s disturbing to say the least, to see these roverse immense costs justified on search for life grounds, but none of them including a drill that can get a deep underground sample or a biological activity detection kit (as ExoMars is). I know a bait and switch when I see one.
That’s why I’m ready for Europa and don’t really support more than Discovery or maybe a once a decade New Frontiers level mission. Mars had it’s chance. It’s not worth spending a billion dollars to study more Mars rocks if that means we don’t go to Europa, Enceladus, Callisto, or heck, Uranus.
ok. you see the search for life as the end all and be all of space exploration. you think that any science that’s not looking for life is worthless.
i, and anyone who actually knows what is being done to expand science on Mars, think otherwise.
“It’s disturbing to say the least, to see these roverse immense costs justified on search for life grounds” — they’re not!! Curiosity is, and always was, a geologist. none of the recent missions is a “search for life” mission. none of them… except maybe in your pathetic mind that hates all science that doesn’t promote your fanciful goal of finding life.
No. Don’t be mistaken. The search for life isn’t the end all be all by any stretch of the imagination. Frankly,nothing would make me happier than a series of direct successors to the Great Observatories program, which has little to do with searching for life.
The argument I’m making is the strength of a justification for millions compared to billions, because that does matter. If we’re going to spend billions on Mars Rovers, the work it is doing better be extraordinarily compelling. Martian Geology not linked to the search for life or eventual manned missions (in a very specific, non-tangential way) is not worth that much money. It’s worth a couple hundred million. It’s worth a Discovery class.
And this applies a lot more to Mars. I think the the JWST is an abomination. Don’t get me wrong, I think that looking into the earlier universe than even Hubble can do is incredibly important. I think it’s couple billion dollars important. But $8.9 billion important? Really? Think of all the science that isn’t being done because that thing exists.
This applies to Mars rovers too. If those things go at $1.5-2 billion each, the reason needs to be supremely compelling and of interest to a very large array of stakeholders, not just the narrow community of Martian planetary geologists. Because every billion dollars spent on Mars is a billion dollars not spent going somewhere new or doing something different.
You only have to look at the ESA’s incredible manifest over the next few years. They’re doing so much more than us, because its like they understand this. And they decided that the $1.5 billion ExoMars rover IS worth it. But they also decided to make the science goals and intended instruments, frankly, more compelling than Curiosity.
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. The lack of a 2 meter drill on Curiosity bothered me years ago, when it was being built. And the fact that the ESA is going to put one on their very first Mars rover while NASA has no plans for something similar on the 2020 Rover (so far) bothers me even more. It’s so weird that for years NASA talks about what might be below the Martian surface, but it’s an ESA drill that is actually going to find out.
To me, this encapsulates what I’m talking about: if we’re going to spend $2 billion on Curiosity, what are we doing if not the most compelling science possible?
the work Curiosity is doing is extremely compelling. we’ve learned a tremendous amount from Curiosity already. Curiosity has definitively proven that neutral-ph water once existed on the surface of Mars (so microbial life, as we know it, could have lived there – determining the past habitability of Mars was one of its primary science goals, and it has already achieved it), it has taken the first radiation measurements from the surface of Mars and found that it’s similar to that experienced by the astronauts on the ISS (great for any potential future human exploration), and it has shown that there is water in the surface soil of Mars in amounts large enough (2% by weight) to make it extracting it for human use is practical. now, keep in mind, Curiosity hasn’t even arrived at its primary science location yet! we will be able to characterize billions of years of Martian history when Curiosity starts climbing Mt. Sharp.
again, you insist that the search for life is the only thing that is important, or at least, it is the only thing worth spending money on. you negate your first paragraph with your second.
the primary reason for the JWST cost overruns is because it had its funding cut early on. seems ironic, right? but reducing the money spent on it at early stages meant years more development time (and associated costs for those years) rather than a shorter period of development time.
if you want other science being done, tell Congress to properly fund NASA so it can get things done more quickly and efficiently, rather than dragging out its projects over many years and incurring the costs associated with those additional years. the SLS / Orion costs have expanded so much for essentially the same reason. they’ve both spent years in development hell.
the Curiosity rover cost about 2.5 billion. that cost is spread out over approximately 12 years of development, design, and construction work. that works out to about 210 million per year. not so bad, when you actually break it down this way. keep in mind, it was also delayed by 2 years, incurring rather dramatic cost increases during that time because while the rover was completed it needed to be stored and maintained in an ultra-clean environment for an additional 2 years, and the people working on it got paid for an additional 2 years of work.
i find the work that curiosity is doing quite fascinating, and i’m not a geologist. just because YOU don’t care, doesn’t mean other people don’t. this again goes back to your extreme bias against anything not looking for life.
the ExoMars rover is less than a quarter of the size of Curiosity, and while it’s got great instrumentation, it doesn’t have anywhere near the compliment of scientific equipment for analyzing the soil samples it takes. your claim that the instruments it has are more compelling is absurd.
Curiosity is doing great and extremely compelling science. just because it’s not the science you want to do, doesn’t negate that fact.
Wrong. You’ll find that only part of the space science community through its “lot” in with JWST. Please don’t generalize without facts in hand. You should talk to planetary science people to get their thoughts. You should talk to Earth science people to get their thoughts.
just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea.
I know! After all, we have a really good energy policy! And a sensible immigration policy! and education policy- just look at all those grads coming out with STEM degrees and no debt!
“What would have happened if the original plan had been implemented”? The implementation was Constellation. Almost from from the beginning, it was going to look, broadly, like Constellation.
And remember how the worst cast scenario for Constellation… “the terrible secret” such as it was, was was the first flight of Ares I would be late 2013 or March 2014?
Oh look at the year… thanks for nothing DIRECT people and every other turf warrior.
In any event, it was educational at least. The VSE got chipped away at for years by everyone with an opinion. The Mars-first and Moon-first people just lobbed grenades at each other. And here we are with the SLS. Folks call it the Senate Launch System. Frankly the term should be embraced. I loev it. Finally there is some adults in the room “this is the way it’s going to be”. After all, leaving NASA to it’s own devices has gotten us… where exactly? Playing with Mice and Lego kits on the ISS through 2024 and 10 years of broken promises.
The failure of VSE is very sad, but I’m glad that in the form of the SLS, we learned an important: sometimes decisions need to be made after a period of debate despite people, not always with their assent.
The SLS may in 2014 be a rocket without a destination. But at least we’ll have it. At least it’ll be something that exists and we’ll be able to choose a destination, rather than more promises, more CG are and more of the same dumb turf battles that go all the way back to to the X-33 program.
Honestly, looking back at the VSE and everything that has happened since makes supporting the SLS easy. She may not be pretty, but at least she is not going imaginary.
..The implementation was Constellation. ….
No, it was not, that is what happened after Griffin came on board.
Oh please. It was close enough. It was the version of it that was meant to not exist on paper. The difference between VSE and Constellation is effectively the difference between having an idea, and then turning it (or at least in this case, making the attempt) of turning it into something real. Things get added. Things get cut.
That’s like trying to argue that SLS isn’t pretty much the further developed version of DIRECT. Is it exactly like Direct 3.0? Nope. Does it differ in lots of key ways. Yep. But it exists because Direct played a big role in killing it’s predecessor program, and SLS is much closer to Direct than Ares V. There are of course, substantial differences. But that’s entirely natural.
But regardless. Arguing purity is what got us into this mess in the first place. A purist vision saw Constellation torn down. A purist vision sees SLS under siege. Compromise? Acceptance? They aren’t in the vocabulary of the folks who have spent the past 10 years undermining every attempt at building a new launch system, simply because it didn’t adhere to their purist vision.
Or shall we have a discussion about what these threads look like whenever the word letters “ATK” are written. Out comes Team Liquid Fuel, who want a clean sheet launch system (not just boosters) at this late of a date, and amazingly think that is a serious proposal (it isn’t).
That’s the lesson of the past 10 years. The SLS needs to happen despite people who disagree with it, not with their blessing. If it isn’t, we’ll be here talking about the 20th anniversary of the VSE and have little to show for it other than computer generated art. And being 30 years old, let me tell you something, the NASA that has existed for almost half my lifetime has produced little more than concept art. For me, the disappointment starts with the failure of the pre-Columbia shuttle successor plans, not with VSE.
Let’s not forget, it wasn’t long before Columbia that, because of the failure of those programs, NASA had planned to fly the shuttles until at least 2020, and probably beyond.
Funny, how the reality of manned American space flight today is even worse than that.
I agree, Griffin had his thumb on the scale with the ESAS was implimented. They used old data from the Titan III and iV and not from the actual flight history of the Delta IV or the Atlas V. They also didn’t count the from the start of the shuttle program only after the SRB accident and then they double counted each shuttle launch. As two SRB launches. Griffin killed the VSE.
Until you launch it and blow it up. This the age of reusable affordable rockets.
“The SLS may in 2014 be a rocket without a destination. But at least we’ll have it”
True, we’ll have it. I think this is the plan:
a. Political – build a big rocket to keep the jobs program going.
b. Political – have a big rocket on hand in case we need to compete with somebody.
c. I don’t have a c, and don’t quote me on a or b.
Well, if SLS gets built, we will certainly have it. That is an obvious solution. In math or physics, we’d call it the trivial solution which means it’s entirely uninteresting and doesn’t provide any insight.
We’ll have it, but what will it have cost us, and what will it cost us in the future? We’ll have an inflexible system whose cost isn’t sustainable and that will fly very rarely. Whoopee. It will require the slicing and possible elimination of other, possibly many, NASA projects in areas in which NASA’s charter demands it work. Meanwhile it’s possible that would drive other countries and other concerns to establish space systems that are actually sustainable and comparatively inexpensive. We’ll be the nation with the giant, bright, and shiny rocket that looks great on display and rarely flies, while others will have systems that may not be as big but will be affordable, allowing them to fly a lot more and do more ambitious missions. Again, you are correct, we will have a big beautiful showpiece.
In the last ten years, two things happened to get us to now. 1) NASA did not change, 2) an American start-up was given a 10 year window to prove itself.
The politics and commercial industry allied to NASA did not change how it does business. HEOMD remained a means to legislate pork barrel projects in the name of exploration. Secondly, NASA, internally, did not change the way it set requirements, design and then managed the overall project, Constellation (CxP). And there were vehicle and capsule designs that would have been less costly but with the same old corporations writing proposals and competing, there was little pressure to really do it better.
Secondly, scuttling Constellation provided a time delay plus turned NASA funds to create Commercial Crew Program (CCP). the added time and injection of funds to SpaceX has led to the progress that we see today in Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and Dragon. I suspect CCP helped sharpen the focus of SpaceX and expedite their development. The time and money helped make SpaceX launchers the disruptive technology it is now to commercial industry and to SLS and Orion.
Had CxP continued unabated, first flights might be happening right now and operation of Ares 1 & V would have commenced. Commercial Crew would have not materialized or had a very stunted growth. So there would likely be a Falcon 9 flying now, but without NASA funds, SpaceX would probably not be as far along. NASA with CxP would have continued on its merry way through this decade. Ares launchers would have begun to prove themselves and be linked to real mission designs. I suspect that shutdown of Constellation, i.e. Ares 1 & Ares V, would have had no chance until the 2020s when low-cost commercial heavy lift became an overwhelming presence.
Now a battle line is emerging that will determine the future of NASA’s HEOMD (human spaceflight). For those without contracts to lose, it is not a battle line. It is pure opportunity for NASA to do it right and set HEOMD – humans, on to explore the solar system. Steve Squyres during the recent Spirit 10 year anniversary, rehashed the old question of how long it would take a human to do what Spirit and Opportunity has done. The answer by him, Carl Sagan and others has always been on the order of days or a few weeks. I’ve always supported robotic missions and believe for the most part, robotics will pave the way for human expansion. However, Human exploration and travel must be done cost-effectively.
With making some hard decisions in the two or three years, the cost of human spaceflight can be made affordable as was the dream with Space Shuttle replacing Saturn. NASA and supporting politicians need to replace SLS/Orion with truly cutting edge technology development. With delays, all the NASA R&D – the spinoffs, have come back to bite NASA in the backside. American space advocates need to mobilize. The public should worry that politicians and the American industrial complex – like dictators, will protect their self-interests.
And the engineers are caught in the middle….A generation wasted..
“Had CxP continued unabated, first flights might be happening right now “
Had Griffin not thrown out pre-ESAS VSE implementation plans and replaced it with his “faster better bass ackwards” ideas, there would have been a CEV fly-off between two contractors in ca 2008. Flying on existing rockets.Add in some delay and make it 2010.
“Had constellation continued unabated the first flights might be happenning now”
I think you are dreaming. Maybe you meant to say if Constellation had gotten that extra $6 billion a year they always said they wanted…
Orion has continued unabated and yet it is hardly any closer to flying today. What might fly in a year is a shell of one portion of the spacecraft. The only goal is to see whether its reentry protection and recovery systems will function; but there is little difference between it and Apollo. If they did a fair job it might work but it does not make it a state of the art machine.
Its a little like the Wright recreators designing and building a modern day Wright Flyer. Instead of the 4hp Wright motor, we have a 200 hp Honda. Instead of hemlock spars we used aluminum. Now this airplane will really get off the ground….but a 747 or Concorde, or V22 its not. It will still only carry the one guy lying prone on the lower wing.
SLS is a smaller, simpler version of Ares 5. it is based more on Shuttle components. if it had been started when Shuttle was still being constructed it might have made some sense. it wasn’t. Ares 1 could not carry Orion in its most basic form. It especially could not carry the ovsersized, overweight version. It wasn’t even close.
According to the GAO the ares V would not have flown until 2028 and even then it was going to be till at least 2033 until a lunar lander was funded and completed.
So here was the Constellation “plan”
First, splash the ISS in 2016.
Start flying Ares I and Orion in 2017 with absolutely NO PLACE to dock, just a capsule in orbit.
Keep flying earth orbit missions with the Ares I and orion until 2028 when the Ares V was completed.
MAYBE fly lunar orbital missions IF an EDS was funded. Fly these for another five years until 2033 when the lunar lander was done.
So the big plan, kicked of in Jan 2004 with the VSE would get a moon landing 29 YEARS later …
Insanity on a bun
I’ll agree that “might be flying by now” was too generous a term. We could today still have been 2 years from the first Ares I launch with astronauts to ISS. Those that supported CxP wanted more money, while DIRECT was calling for its replacement by its Jupiter launch vehicles. And while DIRECT declared victory when the SLS and Orion were funded by Nelson-Shelby-Huthison, SLS does not offer the cost savings of Jupiter and the SLS schedule is proving again that NASA cannot manage its development without continued cost overruns and delays.
Do we all agree that VSE has virtually all disappeared? I think this is clear. It is in complete disarray.
Lowell, Savuporo, Muomega0, Tutiger87 and others, do we agree that SpaceX has changed the game for human spaceflight including NASA’s? I think so.
Do we need to abandon SLS and Orion now in favor of all commercial?
We need a new Vision for Space Exploration. I would propose: 1) release ISS to an International Corporation 2) an international effort to robotically create a manned Moon base 3) Once completed, send astronaut crews routinely to the Moon to augment the ongoing robotic activity. 4) Create an international project to send humans to Mars using a variant of Mars Direct. 5) Abandon ongoing SLS and Orion development and turn fully to Commercial using Falcon 9 with man-rated Delta IV or Atlas V as backup and using Falcon Heavy for cargo. As DIRECT engineers pointed out, even Von Braun concluded that “tanking”, ie. fuel depots were the better choice. 6) Design NASA SMD missions based on Falcon launch vehicles, continue some missions as international efforts as is presently done. If we take quick advantage of the SpaceX disruptive technology and turn to international consortiums to undertake Moon and Mars missions, we could have a new vision that includes a Moon base, humans to Mars and initial survey work to start an industry around near-Earth Asteroids and/or Lunar regolith.
I agree that the last 10 years of Shuttle replacement development has been disastrous. What will Obama say about NASA in his State of the Union (Jan 28)? I suspect that he glosses over with mentioning ISS and Spirit/Opportunity anniversary to segue to Curiosity’s work. Adds Voyager leaving the Solar System. My point is that he ignores the state of NASA’s human spaceflight.
From a study that included Mike Griffin in 2004 for the Planetary Society, it states, “The selection of one or more on approaches ultimately may depend more on political factors than on cost.” That is where we still stand. Nelson and Shelby will likely remain beyond 2016 (Shelby is 80 at re-election in 2016). Culberson who is clamoring to replace Frank says there should be less politics involved in decision making and at the same time he supports completion of SLS and Orion. Who among us doesn’t claim to have loved NASA since childhood? No one of the like is a de facto expert.
Nothing to do with Direct, or SpaceX. The original plan for implementing VSE was run under Steidle’s spirals, with heavy industry competition and participation in defining the architecture. Presumably the spacecraft would have flown on EELVs at the time, or whatever else was offered up by the industry.
It also included numerous frequent robotic precursor missions, once a year, of which only LRO actually came to pass.
All of that was demolished by Griffin. A lost decade.
The battle today is over a handful of missions spreadout over years. The annual mT/year is ~ an order of magnitude less than envisioned. Lost in the battle is a sustainable architecture with the current shift from single 100 mT, underfunded, one legged stool missions (6 day sorties, Inspiration Mars, Goldenspike) to multiple cash starved missions, most to be
designed to fit on SLS because its the law, or so low in mass and quantity that it makes it difficult to sustain a commercial LV industry, and of course, capsule flybys.
For all you historians, Okeefe’s 2004 solication for a Crew Exploration Vehicle (wow is that a misnomer or what!?) was discarded by Griffin in 2005. In the Pre-ESAS studies, note that one team actually included Ares as a concept going forward. The 2005 ESAS study then used flawed assumptions (the goal is less than 3 launch solutions, black zones, ….) and CxP raided the technology pots to pay for its development to “close the gap” to explore sooner without the technology (increasing mission mass/cost). Job loss from the orbiter was expected but it prevented substantial loss in other states. Funding secured, there was no urgency, and multiple engine and capsule developments continue today. CxP was cancelled because Ares I could not do the job, forcing Ares V provide for both the 0.5 launcher and a very heavy hypergolic lander. Without the proper admin in place, Congress wrote in 70 and 130 ton, oops mT in 2010. Explain how any other NASA leader even had a role. Most leaders see the writing on the wall, support the baseline program, and get promoted, or reassigned Programs not in the baseline are simply “directionless honeypots of research”.
It all started with VSE: 3 flaws with just a few “political” words
1) “return to the moon by 2020….”
2) “in prep for human exploration to Mars/other destinations”
3) “NASA does not plan to develop new
launch vehicle capabilities except where critical NASA needs are not met by commercial or military”
1- Deadline killed all tech development (except engines) and underfunded – insane
2- Lunar technology has NOTHING in common with Mars and other destinations
Shielding for cosmic radiation, bone loss in 1/3rd g vs millig for a year, landing heavy objects on *Mars* or asteroids, EP and depots to make it sustainable
3- ESAS dictated the “need” for HLV and four new engine development programs
Numerous attempts were made to challenge the ESAS study assumptions and conclusions (BTW the leaders were
sent packing), ask Keith how long it took to finally release the Appendices, and even the pre-ESAS solution was not flexible, only a one legged stool. Today the call is for a ISS centric
architecture to perform technology maturation *in preparation for a trip to the moon*, but if its deadline is kept in place, its tough to make a business case for the smaller LVs cargo and crew, since only SLS is for BEO. Hey, that’s what this budget basically did: Set up work for the same districts. History does repeat itself!
Today, one could simply reassign every person working on SLS/Orion to the thousands of other Exploration needs
and NASA will made significant progress, albeit far less than optimal.
The future? Take a glance at the Advanced Exploration
System Projects. http://www.nasa.gov/directo…
It includes RP engines for heavy lift, a methane lander, …, and note the absence of the word depot or sustainable architecture. Quite a few biggest losers. To infinity and beyond, or is infinity the time scale?
Good post. I believe the key words that killed VSE were a bit different then yours. As you read the selected lines I pulled from the VSE you note a few things that I believe were non starters for the porkonauts in congress:
“Acquire cargo transportation as soon as practical and affordable to support missions to and from
the International Space Station; and Acquire crew transportation to and from the International Space Station, as required, after the Space Shuttle is retired from service.”
Man did congress hate this one right from the start. Instead of 400 million for a commercial crew start up from the nearly 800 billion stimulus, nope, led by Richard Shelby Commercial crew only got 50 million.
“Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other services supporting the
International Space Station and exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit.”
Another non starter for Congress, they wanted those thousands of high paying jobs in thier districts not a bare bones effiecent commercial option.
“NASA will rely on existing or new commercial cargo transport systems, as well as international partner cargo transport systems. NASA does not plan to develop new launch vehicle capabilities except where critical NASA needs—such as heavy lift—are not met by commercial or military systems.”
This was another non starter for Congress ‘WHAT? no multi billion dollar, no bid, cost plus, fixed fee FAR contracts for our contractors who supported our reelection campaigns?
“It seeks to establish a sustainable and flexible approach to exploration by pursuing compelling questions, developing breakthrough technologies, leveraging space resources, and making smart decisions about ongoing programs.”
The monster rocket huggers keep blaming the augustine committee for the flexible path idea. Actually you can find flexible path three seperate times in the VSE. Only a Nautilus X vehicle provides a flexible path. Not a freakin disposable gold plated capsule.
“In the days of the Apollo program, human exploration systems employed expendable, single-use vehicles requiring large ground crews and careful monitoring. For future, sustainable exploration programs, NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable and need only small ground crews.”
This was a non starter for congress, the shuttle standing army had to be protected at all costs! So congress made sure of that and so Constellation spent 200 million a month on wages or 2.4 billion a year just to keep the brooms being pushed… for a DECADE.
“NASA plans to invest in a number of new approaches to exploration, such as robotic networks, modular systems, pre-positioned propellants, advanced power and propulsion, and in-space assembly, that could enable these kinds of vehicles.”
Now tell me, read that last sentence from the VSE, modular systems that are put together with in space assembly that utilized a fuel depot. How could any sane person believe they are talking about the CEV? It is obvious that a NAUTILUS X vehicles were on the drawing board.
“And there were vehicle and capsule designs that would have been less costly but with the same old corporations writing proposals and competing, there was little pressure to really do it better.”
And if a start-up space ship had an anytime lunar return landing requirement, would they build a land landing system?
yes, as the default landing option with water landing in emergancy landing situaltions?
Should Bush have fired Griffin when it became apparent that the original VSE plan was being distorted into Constellation? If he had, he might have been able to appoint someone at the helm who could have steered NASA back on course. The curse of being Captain Hindsight.
Which admin was in place did not matter.
In 2005, Congress had the admin provide ESAS to justify HLV and throw out an architecture 10s of billions of dollars cheaper.
In 2010, Congress simply had to do the dirty work themselves and specify 70 and 130 mT. As Garver stated, its quite difficult to stop a 100B program to steer the Titanic in a different direction. http://www.spacenews.com/ar…
Great points. Congress uses NASA as the pawns for pork but with SLS they literally had to slop the hogs themselves.
The 2 biggest VSE problems were:
1.)GWBush never had OMB follow through on the $1B in extra budget that was promised and the “sand chart” they created to show how existing resources would be reallocated was a fantasy – it took longer to retire shuttle, cost more to recover from Columbia and, having spent $100B and two decades to build it, was it ever credible that we would abandon ISS after 4 or 5 years?
2.) Griffin and his team failed miserably at execution; they had Griffin’s vision from a 1999 paper he did for AIAA as a template and used biased analyses to tilt ESAS to build a bigger Ares rocket, ignored the billions being invested by the USAF and LM to create EELV, gave internationals a minimal role and, worst of all, simplistically read the Columbia accident investigation report as saying you should not launch crew and cargo together – instead of only launching crew with cargo when it made sense and there was an escape system (as was done in Apollo). There was never a need for an Ares I and yet they wasted close to $1B just to do the X-1 test launch of a sub scale Ares 1 with existing shuttle hardware.
The worst part of it all is not that Constellation failed on its merits – its that it’s proponents see Obama’s actions as illegitimate and politically motivated. The Constellation program – as the Republican expert Augustine observed was un-executable within realistic budgets; Obama killed it but not for partisan reasons. What is most outrageous is that to this day, as at the AIAA SciTech meeting last week, Griffin and his acolytes such as Scott Pace cloak themselves in their technical degrees and imply that they had the objectively “right” solution and what has happened since has been politically motivated. It’s time to move on – ISS is not what was proposed as Freedom in 1984, it’s better thanks to the greater reliance on the international partners; so too will the eventual, longer than it should take, international approach to exploration that will emerge.
Jaded. I think you’re spot on with the history of what happened, including last week at AIAA and the revisionist aparatchiks. (They are a big part of the problem).
Unlike you, I’m not optimistic about the future though. The space and policy community have had multiple turns at the bat over the past decade. Too many have been swinging for the fences (griffin et al) and betting that money will appear. The nation has failed and isn’t willing to admit it and go to the next stage of addressing its problems and setting it on a viable path.
Meanwhile, I think the best path is to make robotic exploration a higher priority, and try to answer there big questions about science and the universe. This will help rekindle interest in the space program, and then perhaps we will be in a more sober position to evaluate the best path forward for human space.
President Obama did not kill the Constellation program. The President presents a NON BINDING budget to congress, for THIS President his budgets have carried absolutely NO weight in congress at all.
In order for the President to have killed Constellation the congress would have had to vote for and appropriate funding for that program and present that legislation to the President, he would have had to veto that spending bill and then survive a veto override.
Why didn’t ANY of that take place?
Because a BI PARTISAN CONGRESS voted to NOT fund Constellation. Lets everyone say that again… congress FAILED TO FUND constellation.
If the President didn’t want heavy lift, why didn’t he just cancel funding for SLS in the budget?
Because since President Nixon refused to spend appropraited funding Congress passed a law, President can no longer refuse to spend funding just because they do not like the program.
Congress appropriated funding for SLS, the President, BY LAW, has to fund the SLS program whether he likes it or not.
The President would have to veto that spending bill to kill SLS. The EXACT SAME thing the President would have had to do to kill the Constellation program IF congress funded it.
But .. for the THIRD time, the reason President Obama didn;t have to veto spending for Constellation was because a BI PARTISAN congress voted to NOT FUND it.
Keith, I hope Frank is doing ok.
Space will not be conquered until someone figures out how to make money out of it. This isn’t complicated. The American West was very hard to find until the railroad.
Searching for life on Mars, or trying to understand Martian geology (aerology) are cool to space people like the denizens herein, but not to all of our fellow citizens.
But cheaper stuff interests everyone. I wonder why SF writers like Bova and the rest of them, including lately Robinson, see the raw materials of asteroids as a huge economic jump start? Is it even possible that these raw materials can come down the well and be economically useful?
If the answer is ‘yes’, and if the case can be made, we would have the conceptual framework against which to assess programatic costs.
The implementation was bungled from the beginning from the top down. Instead of focusing on building a sustainable and affordable (beyond LEO) space transportation system, Griffin used ESAS to justify Ares I and Ares V, which were his own pet projects. Unfortunately, Congress and NASA are continuing to bungle SLS. At this point, the project is so stretched out and expensive that we can’t even afford sane missions for the thing. If SLS does fly, it will fly so infrequently that it will make the space shuttle program look like it had a high flight rate.
I was a huge supporter of VSE when unveiled. I hated seeing it corrupted. My one concern after the announcement especially when the state of the union a year later didn’t have any mention of the program nor did any that followed; was the way it was to be paid for. With no new resources being made available it was unrealistic to think any grand vision would come to fruition. Until leadership from 1600 Penn Ave is forth coming, we will continue to see the status quo continue unabated. Yes, Congress has to “pay for” what we intend to do but until Congress is given REAL direction for WHAT it is NASA is to do; we are just wasting time. Wasting money. Wasting any chance at affecting the future in a meaningful way.