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

Garver: Should NASA Be Preparing for Deep-Space Missions?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 4, 2014
Filed under ,

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

27 responses to “Garver: Should NASA Be Preparing for Deep-Space Missions?”

  1. jski says:
    0
    0

    Never thought I would be agreeing with Garver but here I am agreeing with Garver … on this one point. SLS and Orion are white elephants that will drain resources (i.e, $$$) from NASA when they could/should be better used/spent on commercial space.

    • Bernardo de la Paz says:
      0
      0

      If you’re spending NASA (government) money on it, then by definition it is not commercial space.

      • Engineer_in_Houston says:
        0
        0

        That’s a simplistic view, and it’s not purely true. But, there’s a blurry line. The government buys all sorts of commercial products – that doesn’t make the products any less commercial. The government has strategically (and not so) stimulated nascent industries in the past for mutual benefit. One key distinguishing factor is the contracting approach, and who owns what after the money is spent.

      • Duncan Law-Green says:
        0
        0

        So if there’s a civil servant sitting in seat 17A of the 0750 to Dulles, it’s not a commercial airline any more?

        There is “less commercial” and “more commercial”, it’s not black and white.

      • numbers_guy101 says:
        0
        0

        That’s not so. See the definition of commercial is at:

        http://www.nasa.gov/offices

        At it’s simplest, if the government is buying something that is also widely and legally and actually available on the open market, then it is MORE commercial than buying something that is ONLY available to NASA. NASA may by a laptop for example (commercial). We can also spec out boards (and even laptops) for the space station (not commercial).

        The private sector draws similar distinctions between a widely available commercial item, available to others, at times called a “commodity” item, ISO certified, etc. versus a product they might develop or “make” in-house, or with a special supplier relationship (make to print, etc.). Generally the later is expensive and avoided, unless the thought is to push wholly new product lines (which inevitably morph and become commercial).

  2. Spacelab1 says:
    0
    0

    A good question for NASA is: What is more difficult and expensive, placing a small manned outpost on Mars by the 2030s or lowering the price per pound to LEO to US$50 per pound to LEO by the 2030s? And from which would we benefit more?

    Reaching for deep space HSF before lowering the cost of spaceflight is illogical.

    Many seem to have forgotten or don’t know why the lunar program was shelved in the first place.

    Then again, it’s all about politics anyway.

    • Paul Newton says:
      0
      0

      Remember that Orion grew out of the post 2003 NASA mentality that we had to hurry up and go somewhere…anywhere. LEO remember was boring and we were wasting time in LEO and we needed excitement. We’ll be dreaming of those exciting mission for the next 35 years.

      • Jafafa Hots says:
        0
        0

        Too many people, including many here, seem to think of NASA as their personal fantasy-realization machine.

  3. AstroInMI says:
    0
    0

    Well, she’s right. The heat shield won’t be the same because tests like this is what enables engineers to get data to make better ones.

    • Littrow says:
      0
      0

      You are right, except that this heatshield design is the same as Apollo’s, 50 years old, and there are other options and newer materials, like the heatshield design used for the recent Mars landings. Either way, if NASA and Lockheed had gone with a new design or material, they might have pushed the technology envelope and instead they went with the 50 year old design and material, so just reverted to what was already well understood. Which brings up the question of why this flight was needed, since the main test, we were told was of the heatshield, an already proven design and material.

  4. Paul Newton says:
    0
    0

    I now have some respect for Garver. She is saying all of the right things. If ISS got the sort of hype that Orion has been getting then someone might actually know there is an ISS. I wonder if the ISS Program gives NASA public affairs a budget? THey do not seem to get much for it. I wonder why Garver’s sudden change of heart-I dont remember her saying these kinds of things when she was part of NASA.

    • AstroInMI says:
      0
      0

      I like Garver quite a bit. I disagree with her on her core point here, but she comes to these views with a great deal of experience that should be considered. Based on what she said when she left NASA, I’m not sure she has had a change of heart but as Deputy Administrator she needed to work within the system.

      Regarding the ISS, their PR problem is more that there aren’t enough big events to rally behind. Yeah, there are launches (which should actually be a big deal!) but it’s ho-hum because it’s become routine. (One of the oddities about space is that we all want it to become routine and when it does no one cares!) Orion provides the one-off marketing opportunity as Garver mentions.

  5. Todd Austin says:
    0
    0

    No NASA administrator can do anything without a Congress and President who are willing to devote the necessary funds over the necessary time period to accomplish a clearly-defined goal.

  6. Dr. Malcolm Davis says:
    0
    0

    She has certainly changed her tune since her days at NASA when she’d not say one negative thing about NASA’s direction. Part of me (grudgingly) agrees with her – the commercial dimension needs to be covered and expanded – but I’d not roll NASA back to merely a ‘technology shop’ as she seems to be suggesting. NASA can still play a leading role in human spaceflight, but where the gap is in a lack of leadership, interest, and support from the US’ political leaders – both in the Administration and Congress – and a lack of big vision – that then emasculate’s NASA’s own leadership ability to go after bold objectives. Lack of vision, lack of leadership, lack of funds – those have to be addressed. Its not simply about giving up and handing over to commercial space. NASA and the commercial space companies should be two sides of the same coin.

    • Michael Reynolds says:
      0
      0

      The idea that has been floated around time and time again here is that commercial non-cost plus type contracts (such as COTS or CCDev) be used for the launch capability (vice SLS), while the actual spaceship going to BEO destinations be done through a PPP that uses cost plus contracting (since it would be new and risky to test and build). FYI, Orion is not a BEO spaceship, it is a return capsule with command and control capabilities (as Hug Doug likes to point out).

  7. Joe Denison says:
    0
    0

    I really don’t like Lori Garver. Does she not care about manned space exploration? It looked like all she cares about is launching satellites and tourists (which isn’t NASA’s job already). Also maybe commercial space would get a bit more hype (although it is getting a bunch now) if people like Garver weren’t constantly angling to cancel SLS/Orion.

    This idea that NASA shouldn’t be doing anything except “technology research” is a farce. The new spaceflight technologies (and other spinoffs) that NASA developed during the moon shot and beyond were done in the context of a building program. NASA didn’t sit on their hands for 20 years researching life support and computers before building the Saturn V.

    There is so much irony here. I remember back in the days when CxP was about to get the axe that some new spacers were whining and complaining that we wouldn’t be able to go to the moon until around 2025. Now it appears the same people are totally cool with flying around LEO endlessly as long as everything is “commercial.” (Note: Nothing wrong with flying around in LEO. Just pointing out intellectual dishonesty)

  8. Rich_Palermo says:
    0
    0

    I agree with her view of the Orion boondoggle, not so much with the ISS boondoggle, and perplexed by her associating NASA to the jet engine and the satellite. As far as I know, NASA didn’t exist when the jet was invented and Sputnik and Gagarin achieved firsts before NASA…

    • Wendy Yang says:
      0
      0

      I think she was referring to George Lewis, but you are correct, the first work done on jet engines is by Britain and Nazi Germany.

  9. sch220 says:
    0
    0

    The focus of the Chinese program appears to be establishment of a space station, not boots on Moon or Mars. Even if they were stupid enough to do the latter (which I don’t think they are), they would learn in short order how expensive and nonsensical this approach is. National-scale, Soviet design bureau-style crash programs are not sustainable. Note the emphasis on the word “sustainable.”

  10. yokohama2010 says:
    0
    0

    The more we debate, the more we will do nothing. If you complain there is no mission for SLS, then push for one or several of the proposals to be funded.

    SLS wil be built. It’s what the American people through Congress decided to do. Lori Garver lost. Her ideas failed to gain traction with those who control the purse.

    Whining about it now will only result in us going nowhere.

    Would anyone really rather go nowhere than build SLS and Orion.

    Don’t give me that “well Space X will do this or that… ” Space X is another contactor with the same dreams as the engineers at Boeing…

    • objose says:
      0
      0

      “ISS PR?” I have not seen, and I get from frequent knowledgeable posters on this site none of you have, much ground breaking research being done on ISS. She is enamored with that? I think the ISS is a waste in terms of anything new at this point. We know medically what happens to individuals in space protected by the van allen belt. We have all the data on that we could ever analyze. Even if we agree with Ms. Garver on the “taxpayer” being milked by government programs and contractors and costs, one question about inconsistency still bothers me: Why is it that an administration that took healthcare into public sector because it would run more efficiently see the space program as run better in the private sector? IF she were to say she opposed both being run by the public sector, she would gain more credibility with me. I do not claim to know which is right or wrong, I just ask for a consistent view of which position you have. I am way past the stage of arguing about “government waste.” That clearly concerns no one anymore. If you cannot figure out how to stop increasing an 18 trillion dollar debt you aren’t serious about waste.

    • Tom Billings says:
      0
      0

      “Don’t give me that “well Space X will do this or that… ”
      Space X is another contactor with the same dreams as the engineers at Boeing…”

      In Senator Shelby’s dreams.

      “Lori Garver lost. Her ideas failed to gain traction with those who control the purse.”

      Indeed, the idea that NASA exists to prepare the settlement of the Solar System by people not needing a Senator’s permission to do so has *never* been part of the intent of people like Shelby, and the rest of the SLS/Orion coalition in Congress. That Lori failed to overturn their certainty, that the best uses of NASA money all involved big programs with lots of jobs in their districts is not on Lori’s head, but the political community’s.

  11. yokohama2010 says:
    0
    0

    Also, strikes me that there was not a word of encouragement from this site to anyone at NASA. Kinda like my way or the highway…

    We would have never gotten to the moon with the attitude here.

    We would be in endless debate about how to build an F1 engine.

    Once your idea loses, get on board with what the majority have decided.

    If you don’t then you are just crying over spilt milk

    • Michael Reynolds says:
      0
      0

      Apollo was great and all for nationalist ideals in a time when we wanted to show the world that we were better than the Russian’s. It isn’t the 60’s or 70’s anymore. Unfortunately the leadership in both countries seems to want to return to that time and place…for whatever reason. In any case, I would rather see a sustainable program that is not just Apollo 2.0 Mars edition (although with much less funding and over 25+ years).

      • yokohama2010 says:
        0
        0

        Problem is that ISS and hitching rides with Russians does not comport with what the American people have grown to expect from their Space Program. People don’t like having to hitch a ride whenever they head out of their own home. ISS was an expensive use of our shuttle system when it could have been constructed with a Shuttle-C modification.

        We miss our shuttle, we miss Apollo, we miss watching launches of our own domestic design.

        Americans best explore when we lead the way.
        Simply different when Russians are in the drivers seat.
        Certainly different when the Chinese are in the game also.

        Sustainable really means flat budget.
        It means cutting corners with what’s given to you whether that’s enough or not.

        Getting to Mars will need an significant budget increase.

        After the technology is built, then the budget can stabilize.

        The folly of Nixons space policy decision was to scrap the Apollo hardware when all the investment had been made.

    • Rich_Palermo says:
      0
      0

      You mean like how the Congress got on board with the administration’s roadmap after two presidential victories?

      • Joe Denison says:
        0
        0

        A majority electing Mr. Obama to the Presidency doesn’t equal majority agreement with every single one of his policies. The majority of those who care about HSF are not in favor of his roadmap.