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.
Exploration

Video: Garver on NASA Exploration Policy and Budgets

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 6, 2014
Filed under , , , ,

“Has a Massive BOONDOGGLE Hobbled NASA? – Chris Hayes: NASA space agency celebrated a major successful launch on Friday. However, a former NASA official says it’s being undermined by short-sighted politicians pushing old technology to keep pork barrel spending in their districts With Lori Garver, former Deputy NASA Administrator.
From ALL IN, MSNBC”

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

125 responses to “Video: Garver on NASA Exploration Policy and Budgets”

  1. JadedObs says:
    0
    0

    This is outrageous on so many fronts: she is undermining Charlie Bolden and the Administration that she used to be a part of and also just sour grapes in the face of a successful test flight. Worst of all, especially in the context of ARM, it contravenes her own testimony and statements about Orion’s utility when she was the NASA Deputy. Did she think the Apollo era was devoid of politics or invested constituencies? How naive! She truly is Goldin’s prodigy!

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Garver is no one’s prodigy but her own. She started out as a leader in the space enthusiast community, i.e. one of us. As Deputy she was obligated to represent the views of the administration, not her personal views, though the latter were no secret. As Administrator under a future president, she would have the solid technical understanding, consistent political skills, and mature strategic vision to lead NASA toward its destiny.

      • JadedObs says:
        0
        0

        Wow – hard to know where to start… As deputy, she was directly involved – even more than Charlie – in developing the Administration’s views – and they compromised with Congress on the Constellation remnants and Commercial She should have the sense to know that years and billions of dollars later, it’s not worth revisiting especially at a moment of triumph.
        I agree that Lori HAS had an impact and much of it good relative to infusing more commercial receptivity to NASA and championing new ways of doing business. But she doesn’t have a technical background and she’s politically worse than tone deaf when it comes to dealing with even pro-NASA opposition to her opinions. I’ve seen her at Hill events where she was needlessly in the face of important Republicans – that’s not smart. You’re right in that she has a long legacy of being a space advocate but in her ability to piss off important NASA constituencies for often no good reason, she’s Goldin’s girl!

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          Obama announced cancellation of Constellation in February of 2010, however the President’s party lost control of the House (and NASA appropriations) in the disastrous 2010 election. SLS was announced in 2011 and required by legislation. I’m not sure how much choice Garver (or Bolden) had in the matter.

          Garver doesn’t have a degree in engineering, but her understanding of technical, financial and political issues and societal goals appears to me to be consistent and solid. I agree she can be annoyingly direct in person; maybe we can convince her to be more diplomatic without actually compromising on the important issues.

          But I suspect the NASA “constituencies” are only interested in money for their districts and contributors, and if they don’t get it, no amount of friendly conversation will make them less pissed off.

    • objose says:
      0
      0

      Deserves to be reposted, thank you: “Did she think the Apollo era was devoid of politics or invested constituencies?”

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        Not sure I understand your point. Garver has never made such a claim. She simply makes it clear that today these political factors are actually sabotaging the goal of sustainable human spaceflight.

  2. Odyssey2020 says:
    0
    0

    Funny, I don’t remember Lori being so forthcoming back when she was Deputy Administrator.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Hmm .. I wonder why she left ….

      • Robert Sevigny says:
        0
        0

        Thank goodness she left.

        • david says:
          0
          0

          Agree and a whole lot of others that would never post on here do as well

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Please feel free to post. I can’t speak for everyone, but I have the greatest respect for those who disagree with me. By respectful discussion we both have the chance to learn.

          • Mike says:
            0
            0

            I’m curious as to why a lot of people feel this way. Could you please elaborate as to why people were glad to see her go? I’m assuming that most of them were somehow emotionally tied to the constellation program, but please correct me if I’m wrong.

          • John_K_Strickland says:
            0
            0

            I think it is well understood by many that the space community is very roughly divided into “the Old Guard”, who tend to support what some of us call the “Space Industrial Complex”, and the NewSpace supporters, who tend to like the new space entrepreneurs. There are also a lot of people in the middle who may not be aware of this division at all.
            Claims that we want the entrepreneurs to replace NASA are misguided and wrong. If NASA contracted with private companies to build rockets the same way that airlines buy airplanes, there would be a lot more space exploration. Private companies are forced to be faster and more efficient than the government, but for the same reason, they normally cannot fund pure exploration, since there is no immediate profit motive in it. That is why we still need NASA.
            The people who continue to support the old style programs are just being human, as new ideas are very hard for people to accept until they have been demonstrated. Once a reusable rocket has been demonstrated, then we can put it down to some other cause !

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            A reusable rocket like, say, our first manned spacecraft, the X-15?.

          • david says:
            0
            0

            Not really due to Constellation, I am not a civil servant but my understanding is she has alienated most of them. Not my words but I get the impression she is considered an outsider only intent on making a name for herself regardless of the impact it has on the agency and the charter that NASA has been entrusted to follow.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        I don’t pretend to know. But I would hazard a guess that she wanted to distance herself from Bolden and the Obama plan so that if by some miracle Hillary wins and picks Lori as Administrator she can set a new course with the kind of vision, leadership and authority that might possibly even influence our infinitely cynical leaders in Congress.

        But there is another reason I have thought about. Garver is used to speaking her mind, and finally got tired of having her excellent strategic advice ignored, and defending policies she knows will fail.

        • objose says:
          0
          0

          Yes took her 4 years and another job to “tired of having her excellent strategic advice ignored, and defending policies she knows will fail.” Yes I am sure she left on principles.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            I’m not speaking for her, but its only in the last year or two she had been forced to tell House and Senate committees that the SLS/Orion would work and that ARM was a sensible mission for it. Prior to that she was able to help build enough support for Commercial Crew to hopefully get it through the next couple of years. Not all problems have solutions, and there may be no way for Garver to accomplish what she knows must be done, but she is a good tactician and is following the best course available.

          • objose says:
            0
            0

            Wait, for the last 4 years people on this site have said that SLS/Orion would not work. Agree or disagree with all of you here I may, but giving Garver leeway for ok let’s just say 2 years. Did she have a big desk (almost wrote something else there but Dennis would have thrown me off <g>)? Did it take her 2 years to clear it out? NASA has been a mess according to this forum for 6 years. Does she not have a subscription??? I would rather listen to what you have to say vulture4 than what she does. Your credibility is not compromised by where your check comes from.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            I neither claim nor possess credibility. However I understand a little of the situation Garver is in. Undoubtedly she told Bolden and Obama what she really thought, but in public she had to support the administration line or resign. Of course, she could be blogging under a pseudonym….

      • objose says:
        0
        0

        You wonder really? Let us not make like she made a principled moved. She was confirmed July 15 2009. I figure 3 weeks after, she knew what she was going to be asked to support. She supported it. She spoke about it, visited centers, supported budget requests. I saw her speak. She left in September 2013. So what, she is a slow learner? Oh and why did she leave? For a better position as General Manager of the Airline Pilots association. Look I do not disagree with many of the positions posted here. I believe that, regardless of the opinions expressed, the posts are principled. OVER 4 years to figure out that SLS was a bad idea? Is she stupid? Oh and I listened to her presentation. She said: “NASA is touting that this space capsule has gone farther than any other, but we have probes that have gone much farther.” Again she knows what was said. NASA said that this was farthest a capsule has gone since the 70’s. She can either make her points and be taken seriously or be a hack. I am trying to learn but she is clearly not “doing taxpayers any favors.” Question: You did not agree with the direction NASA was taking when you were deputy director but stayed there 4 years. Do you believe in the principles supported by the Airline Pilots Association? That would be a really good question for an interview.

    • mattmcc80 says:
      0
      0

      And lobbyists don’t usually publicize their personal views when they’re on the job, being paid to push a specific narrative. Her job was to further the White House’s agenda regarding NASA, and that’s what she did right up until she resigned. Garver is far from the first government official to criticize an administration after leaving it, and she won’t be the last.

      • JadedObs says:
        0
        0

        Yes and she isn’t the only former Obama Administration official trying to distance them from this unpopular president so they can take another job in a future Dem administration.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          The only reason Garver has to distance herself is that Obama was forced by the GOP to ressurect Constellation and send the human spaceflight program down a path that leads to inevitable failure.

    • Spacetech says:
      0
      0

      No matter what your position is, you have to answer to somebody. So having an opinion while working at NASA is not conducive to you future.

  3. Joe Denison says:
    0
    0

    What a bunch of bull. Of course one of the major reasons NASA receives support is where it centers are located. That said lets not pretend that SpaceX and other commercial space companies are free of the pork angle. They have their Congressional supporters too. I am sick and tired of this narrative that pork for commercial space is pure and pork for NASA is evil. Sure its all pork but what is it being used for? I think both efforts are deserving of the cash.

    $500 Billion dollars for a Mars mission using the current architecture? What a bald faced lie. That’s $25 Billion a year for 20 years! The entire human spaceflight budget is around $6.4 Billion right now. Even if we assume NASA’s budget is increased by $6 Billion a year it and all of it goes to manned spaceflight it would take the entire NASA budget to equal the figure she quotes. All that other money is going to be spent anyway regardless of manned spaceflight. What a disengeneous jerk.

    • Matt Johnson says:
      0
      0

      I think people wouldn’t mind it providing those jobs if we got something decent in return for it! Want to not be attacked as wasteful pork-barrel spending? Produce something more innovative than an updated Apollo command module that we can afford to fly more often than once every 4 years.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Here is the original budget chart Sean O’Keefe presented back in 2004. If you extrapolate the growth rate to 2030 and integrate the total Exploration/CEV budget it comes out to at least $300B. In reality NASA is not even getting the annual increase O’Keefe assumed.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wik

      The question isn’t one of which company or which NASA administrator is more virtuous or more to our liking, but of which strategies will succeed, and which will fail.

    • James Lundblad says:
      0
      0

      $25 Billion a year would be about 500,000 direct jobs, and over 1Million total jobs depending upon the multiplier effect.

  4. DJE51 says:
    0
    0

    So wrong on so many fronts. However, the media portrayal of this flight as the first step to mars is pretty bad, I have seen reports such as, next step Mars! There is no Mars architecture, and Orion certainly won’t do it. It is designed as possibly (hopefully) the control bridge for a much larger structure, and as a return vehicle for astronauts.

    • Allen Thomson says:
      0
      0

      >i It is designed as possibly (hopefully) the control bridge for a much larger structure, and as a return vehicle for astronauts.

      It was designed back in Constellation days to be a crew transport vehicle between earth and moon in support of an Apollo-like lunar exploration program. In that role, it would probably serve fairly well. Whether and how well it can be re-purposed in the future to other ends is very much TBD.

      • Craig Beasley says:
        0
        0

        CEV and now MPCV/Orion has always been intended to be used as a control component for Mars missions, as one of its many possible missions. Lunar was only one designated port of call. The only re-purposing would be to reclaim its docking mechanism, and likely going back up to a crew of six.
        The cynicism on Friday’s very successful launch is both amusing and astounding. The Orion did everything it was supposed to on its first flight, with some truly minor issues, but it gets called a boondoggle. I know how deeply we instrumented the ship, and I know what is inside and outside of it. We should have test data for every subsystem at a very good level of fidelity.
        I’ve seen people refer to Orion as a “Potemkin” spaceship, or deny that it is a ship at all, the latter being obviously a weird thing to say. Weird unless the person saying such is partaking of sour grapes…
        Orion did exactly what it said it would do last Friday, and it did those things well and for good technical reasons. We’re going to take those good results and move on to the next flights.

        • Allen Thomson says:
          0
          0

          > CEV and now MPCV/Orion has always been intended to be used as a control component for Mars missions, as one of its many possible missions. Lunar was only one designated port of call. The only re-purposing would be to reclaim its docking mechanism, and likely going back up to a crew of six.

          Not exactly. If you look at DRA 5.0, it talks about a future upgrade of Orion that consists of “crew module and SM with a 3-year in-space certification”, in contrast to today’s 6-month certification for quiescent operation. Once at the Mars Transfer Vehicle, “[t]he long-lived Orion block upgrade that was delivered on the Ares V is configured to a quiescent state and remains docked to the MTV for the trip to Mars and back to Earth. Periodic systems health checks and monitoring are performed by the ground and flight crew throughout the mission.” So it’s just along for the ride until right before return to Earth, no controlling involved.

          That’s from http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/373… , which explains things thusly:

          “In previous design reference missions (DRMs), a small capsule was envisioned for the Earth return vehicle (ERV), but with the design of the Orion CEV there is now a block-upgrade path that would seek to augment the capsule that is currently being designed to go to the moon for use on a round-trip Mars mission. This would primarily involve upgrading the Thermal Protection System (TPS) on the current Orion design to account for the higher Earth entry speeds and certifying the vehicle for extended dormant times in a space environment.”

          • Craig Beasley says:
            0
            0

            I stand corrected. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that Orion has always been part of the Mars transit spacecraft build. Whether it controls that composite vehicle is a different issue, as you’ve pointed out.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Orion was originally planned for the lunar mission. It was given a 28 day active life so it could remain in lunar orbit unmanned but active while all four crewmembers descended to the lunar surface. It was later proposed as an ISS crew transport, which required six month on-orbit storage. The Mars mission requires only a few days active ops (launch and entry) but 2-3 years on-orbit storage. The Orion currently has much more onboard supplies and less storage life than required. It is difficult to see any reason why it would be any more difficult to adapt the Dragon to the Mars mission than the Orion in its current form.

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            the document you cite is from 2009. the Orion in that document is the CEV from Constellation, not the current MPCV Orion.

          • Allen Thomson says:
            0
            0

            The ADD2 version of the document, dated March 2014, has the same thing as the 2009 original.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          If you examine the history of the Orion design I think you will find that Orion was designed specifically for the lunar mission, to be used for crew transport in a plan to establish a permanent manned base, probably at the lunar South Pole. The notional Mars and ARM missions were substituted because no funding is available to build a lander or base facilities for the Moon.

    • Robert Sevigny says:
      0
      0

      No one (other than Lori Garver) is seriously suggesting astronauts will live in an Orion capsule for an entire Mars mission. Many more pieces will need to be created before this puzzle is completed. The control bridge and return vehicle ideas correspond with my own thoughts. It is one step at a time my friend. This was such a step.

  5. John_K_Strickland says:
    0
    0

    Lori is telling it straight.

    Anyone who can count can add up the costs and the components and compare it to the NASA budget can see that the SLS and Orion programs are in effect stealing funds from the research that would let us go to Mars and build a base. We cannot leave for Mars without a deep space habitat, the size of a space station module. We cannot put a crew in deep space without effective radiation shielding. All of this is too heavy to launch on EXPENDABLE rocket boosters like the SLS. Even the 2009 NASA Mars mission plan called for about 1300 tons for each mission placed into Low Earth Orbit.This would take 10 SLS boosters, at 130 tons of payload each. This version of the booster may not be ready until 2030. How would they be able to afford to build and to launch that many SLS boosters with payloads in one year or so?

    The numbers just do not add up.
    Without developing a fully reusable Mars mission architecture, and without using commercial reusable boosters, we cannot physically nor fiscally mount a Mars expedition.

    If Joe does not believe Lori’s number, here is my cost table:

    Based on the Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0 (2009)

    Development cost of the SLS to 2030 $60 Billion
    production cost of 30 SLS Boosters $60 Billion
    development cost for Orion to 2030 $30 Billion
    production cost of 6 Orion capsules $12 Billion
    development cost for all other Mars mission vehicles $60 Billion
    production cost for all other Mars mission vehicles $30 Billion
    Operational costs for the Mars missions for a decade $30 Billion
    TOTAL COST OF 3 MISSIONS $282 Billion

    This is probably an underestimate.

    John Strickland

    • yokohama2010 says:
      0
      0

      So we should not bother at all…
      Too expensive, thus we sit and do absolutely nothing except count numbers…

      • Engineer_in_Houston says:
        0
        0

        That’s not what is being said.

        • John_K_Strickland says:
          0
          0

          Correct: due to the way NASA operates, both from its management culture and from Congress forcing the SLS down NASA’s throat, any Mars missions based on its use would cost about 10 times more than they should cost if based on reusable boosters and reusable spacecraft. This means an initial Mars mission to build a base should cost no more than about $40-50 Billion. Such a mission would not be a flags and footprints mission. It would leave a base in orbit and a base on the surface, ready for the next crew to use. The entire mission could be launched into LEO in 6 months or so. I expect to see the first reusable booster land either this month or sometime next year. Once such a reusable first stage has sent a SECOND payload into orbit, those who scoff at reusable rockets will shut up.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            I agree, but reusability is not by itself a panacea. That belief is what led to the errors of the Shuttle era. A system that costs as much to reuse as Shuttle did not achieve the cost savings that were anticipated. The Falcon is a much more effective design for low total cost of operations.

          • John_K_Strickland says:
            0
            0

            The shuttle was promoted as being reusable, and they did not throw the orbiter away, but after the politics and committees turned the “horse” into a “camel”, it became in effect only refurbishable, and cost about $1 Billion to launch each time, taking months to prepare for the next launch. The concept of reusability was merely the hook that the politicians used to fund the program. Some of the original, pre-1971 shuttle designs were far more reasonable and practical.
            Opponents of reusability constantly and unfairly use the Shuttle in red herring arguments against attempting to achieve it. They in fact succeeded for 40 years in preventing any successful government program for a reusable surface to orbit transport system. The ball, however, is now in another court, as you well point out. We are cautiously optimistic about the chances of recovery of the next Falcon 9R launch and landing attempt. I wonder what excuses the reusability opponents will come up with if the landing succeeds?

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        We can demand an easy answer and personally attack anyone who points out its shortcomings, or we can put our brains to work and our dollars into R&D and come up with ways to explore space that are less expensive and more likely to succeed.

      • EarthlingX says:
        0
        0

        Get rid of SLS ASAP and accelerate work on propellant depots
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

        and start building Nautilus-X
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

        all for less than that monster vampire.

    • Engineer_in_Houston says:
      0
      0

      Right. She nails it here.The NASA/contractor team is very, very capable, but the associated Congressional reps who direct the funding are very, very shortsighted. The approach being followed now is unsustainable – another flags and footprints endeavor if we are lucky enough to get even that. Cancel SLS immediately. I’m not interested in seeing one-off missions here and there over the coming decades. We need a government/industry plan – an actual thought-out approach – that results in an agile, measured, expansion into space where commerce plays an early role and gets infrastructure costs off the backs of taxpayers, and allows NASA to always be at the cutting edge. That will require Congressional reps to think of national interests instead of local interests. Is it possible?

    • disqus_wjUQ81ZDum says:
      0
      0

      Have you included the NASA/SP–2009-566-ADD2 March 2014 to the DRA 5.0 in your thoughts?

    • CrossoverManiac says:
      0
      0

      “Even the 2009 NASA Mars mission plan called for about 1300 tons for each mission placed into Low Earth Orbit.”
      Well, that’s what happens when the missions tries carrying all of its fuel rather than filling up on Mars. And before you say “it’s too risky” or make an ad hominem like “Didn’t read! Zubrin cultist!”, carrying all of the fuel has its own risk such as a LOX explosion (Apollo 13) or micrometeoroid strike. OTOH, if the fuel production apparatus malfunctions or the fuel tanks leak, the mission can be scrubbed. Even in the worst case scenario where something happens to the fuel stock while the mission is on route to Mars, the lander carrying the fuel production apparatus for the next mission can make a landing next to the current mission and create fuel for the return trip.

      • John_K_Strickland says:
        0
        0

        What is worse is that the 2009 Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.o. (RDA) seems to excel at making as many expendable vehicle segments (about 60 total per mission) as possible. The lander is a lander only, and the MAV (Mars Ascent Vehicle) has another one which lands the ascent vehicle, so you have in effect 3 separate Mars vehicles, 3 sets of rocket engines, tanks, structure, etc., and they are all expendable and there is no backup vehicle. It is madness.

    • EarthlingX says:
      0
      0

      SLS is social welfare program, based on the trade between politics and
      capital. It all works for common good locally, but i don’t think it’s in
      humanities best interest as advertised.
      I don’t have anything against social welfare programs, quite contrary, it’s just that it doesn’t fit so prominently in NASA’s mission description.
      SLS will go away with answer to what to do with all those people working on the tank, engine and boosters. Good luck.

      Orion has again chances to survive, as CST-100, if nothing else.

  6. Robert Sevigny says:
    0
    0

    I am sick and tired of Lori Garver bad mouthing NASA’s manned space program. Who is backing her now? She seems to be on every channel. She seems to be flacking for the private space commerce companies. Sadly the reporters interviewing her know jack about the space program — or her background — and thus seem to take her criticisms as gospel.

    We all know somebody had to build a heavy or super heavy lift booster to launch future manned missions to Mars or other destinations. Using Shuttle legacy hardware isn’t stupid and the technology isn’t antique. We would be profoundly lucky to have working F-! rocket engines like the ones that powered the Saturn 5 rockets in our inventory. The idea that SpaceX or anyone else will build a super heavy booster cheaper or better right now is just a pipe dream. All hardware going into the SLS will be upgraded as the rocket develops.

    Regarding the SLS being too small, any manned mission to Mars or the Asteroids is going to be far too heavy to launch in one shot from Earth. It will have to be assembled in orbit and, hopefully, will be reusable. And no, it is not a surprise that astronauts will need more than the Orion spacecraft to live in on the way to Mars. Fortunately, the Bigelow inflatable habitats seem like an excellent potential solution to this problem and other possible solutions may well emerge. But Orion will be an essential part of the mix and it will let us send missions to the Moon in preparation for Mars, the asteroids, and other destinations to come.

    Let’s stop trying to knock down every advance America makes in manned space flight. And if it doesn’t live up to Lori’s idea of what a future system should look like, she is has my permission to get her backers to build one for free for the American public. If it is better, we may buy it. All of these systems — no matter what the source — are going to be expensive and complex. The way the US budgets space exploration — we will have to stretch out acquisition over the years until America realizes we need to up our game and get on with an aggressive manned space program. But every long journey begins with a single step, and Orion has taken such a step. I applaud that achievement.

    • LPHartswick says:
      0
      0

      I couldn’t agree more. You’ve lowered my blood pressure and saved me a lot of typing.

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      “We all know somebody had to build a heavy or super heavy lift booster to
      launch future manned missions to Mars or other destinations”

      No we don’t. One Atlas V can land a ton of equipment on Mars, as demonstrated by Curiosity.
      One SLS cant land anything on Mars because it doesnt exist.

      • objose says:
        0
        0

        Wait, savuporo, you contradict RS with this: “No we don’t. One Atlas V can land a ton of equipment on Mars, as demonstrated by Curiosity.” Like the plan or not 1 ton is not 70-130 tons. How much will 70 Atlas 5 launches will get 70 tons up? SLS yes or SLS no but Atlas 5 does not play on the same playground.

        • savuporo says:
          0
          0

          SLS is not designed to put 70 tons on Mars, no way no how. 70 would be its IMLEO capability.

          If the issue of getting to Mars would be purely of launch costs ( it isnt ) then even with highly prohibitive ULA launch costs you could get about 5-10 tons of future base equipment to Mars every year for ongoing SLS development budget. That is assuming the most pessimistic numbers, and assuming the launch price wont budge with such a high volume.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          SLS cannot put 70 tons on Mars. It can put 70 tons in LEO. Three Atlas Vs can put 75 tons on LEO. Two FHs will put 100 tons in LEO.

    • jamesmuncy says:
      0
      0

      If you listened to what Lori said instead of the voices in your head, you heard her PRAISE the Lockheed, ULA, and NASA team that made EFT-1 such a success. What she trashed was the NASA SPIN that this is a step toward Mars, so everyone should just keep funding SLS (and Orion) and one day we’ll get there. That’s a big lie, and Lori is calling people out on it.

      And as for your idiotic statement that we need heavy lift… even if that were true, we don’t need — and can’t use — unaffordable heavy lift.

      I wonder how far Orion could take a small crew if it were launched… along with a fully-loaded Centaur… on a Falcon Heavy in 2018, instead of on SLS.

      • objose says:
        0
        0

        “on a Falcon Heavy in 2018, instead of on SLS” well the NASA people said that Orion started at 65,000 lbs and since FH is rated 53,000 lbs, it would get to the edge of space and then fall. . . .

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          Orion is overweight. During Apollo we told program managers and engineers to find ways to reduce weight without compromising performance or safety. Get it down to a weight that the FH can launch and we will be able to save money as well. Oh, and make that weight _with_ the airbags so it can land on land to reduce risk and save more money. That’s the kind of leadership we need.

        • EtOH says:
          0
          0

          Ahem, the falcon heavy will be rated for 53,000 kg, so it while it can’t quite handle two Orions, it ought to handle one just fine.

        • jamesmuncy says:
          0
          0

          While Falcon Heavy has not yet flown, its estimated performance is 53,000 KILOGRAMS to LEO. I think even Orion is covered.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          The Falcon Heavy, utilizing the cross feed will push 53 metric TONS to LEO or 116,000 pounds
          You might want to take a remedial math course.

          • objose says:
            0
            0

            An error Vladlslaw. Hey at least my conversion error didn’t end up crashing a space craft into Mars! Thanks for the correction. Snipey comment unnecessary.

      • John_K_Strickland says:
        0
        0

        Jim is right, the argument is that what we need is AFFORDABLE lift, heavy or not. The argument for using existing smaller rockets with depots will work for lunar operations, but we will need a reusable HLV for Mars operations, to be able to launch WIDE vehicles to decelerate more effectively in the thin Mars atmosphere . We are talking about capsules that are 50 feet across at the base, but only mass 30 tons dry. This work was pioneered by Georgia Tech, and uses supersonic retro-propulsion to finish the deceleration and landing. No money for actual tests of this has been provided of course, due to the SLS program.

    • hikingmike says:
      0
      0

      “All hardware going into the SLS will be upgraded as the rocket develops.”

      I hope so. How do you know this? It’s not in the budget yet. There wasn’t enough upgrading during Shuttle, should have been.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      Wow what a dream world you live in. Legacy hardware, and the labor force tied to it is dragging our Nation’s human spaceflight down the drain. President Bush outlined that very problem in the Vision for Space Exploration, which the legacy corporations IMMEDIATELY lobbied to end.

      “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. 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.”

      The only way the VSE was going to work was if ALL legacy space shuttle operations AND workforce was retired. Congress didn’t allow that to happen we are still be saddled with all weight on the budget and that why a four person, water landing DISPOSABLE capsule is costing the American taxpayers 23 BILLION dollars.
      THAT is insanity on a bun.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      . The idea that SpaceX or anyone else will build a super heavy booster cheaper or better right now is just a pipe dream”
      And your evidence is?…..

      SpaceX is as we speak, testing components of its Raptor 1.7 million pound thrust engine. They very actively working on design for their BFR which in its first iteration is rated at double the thrust of the Saturn V (or SLS). Word is that it may be ready by the end of the decade. And it is to be FULLY reusable.

  7. Don Denesiuk says:
    0
    0

    I don’t think Ms Garver is dissing NASA as much as the system it’s forced to work under. No Bucks no Buck Rogers. If you want Committee members to support budgets they have to have something to show to their constituents back home or they won’t get re-elected and that’s the only thing that’s important to them, not what’s best for the country.

    NASA would love to go to Mars asap but the only way it will get funded is the bloated and wasteful way things have been done because there is no incentive in the system to innovate. The case of SLS is a good example, rather than take time to find a newer, better, cheaper way of doing things lawmakers basically forced NASA to build it using as much STS (Shuttle) hardware as possible or not get the funds needed to bail out the JWST whose program was grossly mismanaged under the Bush administration and administrator Golden’s watch.

    • Robert Sevigny says:
      0
      0

      And who is going to pay for the R&D on these new rockets? Or don’t you think that costs money? You assume that new boosters will be better and cheaper, but there is no concrete reason to believe that is the case. If you look at the ESA’s various versions of the Ariane rocket they are not dramatically better or cheaper than our rockets. The SpaceX boosters are cheaper (for the moment) — but they haven’t proven they are better and someday soon, Mr. Musk is going to want to start making money again and the prices will go up like the rockets.

      • jamesmuncy says:
        0
        0

        You don’t need new rockets, you need new thinking in how to use existing more affordable rockets.

        One year’s SLS funding will get you three Delta IV-Hs. That’s 3×28 tons to orbit, or 84 tons. Versus 70 from SLS. And Delta IV-H is the most expensive per pound rocket we have. Put the really valuable stuff on Deltas or Atlases and the propellant on Falcon Heavy’s.

        And please demonstrate that you’ve raised and earned a few million before you assert you KNOW what Elon Musk is going to do.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        SpaceX boosters are cheaper (for the moment) — but they haven’t proven they are better and someday soon, Mr. Musk is going to want to start making money again and the prices will go up like the rockets.

        I don’t see anyone out there with plans to have competitive rockets. Because of starvation wages, India could, but its big rocket is unreliable.
        As to being better, better at what? They are reliable and cost-effective. That’s what you want.
        As to making money, SpaceX says its been profitable since 2007. With reusability likely to be nailed down in 2015, expect to see prices from them always undercutting the competition.

    • david says:
      0
      0

      About the only relationship between George Bush and Dan Goldin is that George Bush accepted his resignation shortly after taking office. SLS leverages a number of R&D technology development efforts NASA undertook under a number of projects that were cancelled but still made it through the formulation phase and some as far as CDR. What is being suggested is actually what is occurring, its just not that obvious to the outside observers or I guess Lori

  8. John_AnotherContractor says:
    0
    0

    I’ve wondered about this but never heard any analysis. What about using an asteroid as a radiation shield? Dig a hole, shove a couple re-purposed ISS modules in it, strap a booster section and go? Would that be more or less efficient than dragging the parts up off earth, given the likely much greater mass of the shielding? Still need a lander and other pieces, so it wouldn’t be cheap.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Mass is always at a premium in a spacecraft, so radiation shielding must be carefully shaped to minimize mass. Asteroidal material could well be used to fabricate such shielding, but to propel an entire asteroid would be likely to exceed the feasible mass.

    • CrossoverManiac says:
      0
      0

      A combination of passive mass shielding and active magnetic shielding would be more viable. Also, NASA is looking into medicine to prevent illness and death from radiation exposure.

  9. Steven Rappolee says:
    0
    0

    I would think the greater density of LHC4 would be of help for SLS as it appears to be for future spaceX and ULA launch vehicles but of course this requires funding doesn’t it?

    my thought is that the USAF and Rocketdyne should develop a LHC4 RS-25 or SSME

    http://yellowdragonblog.com

    I have discovered a dual fuel study done back in 1978 for the SSME and this study could be redone with methane gells mixed in LH2

    • ex-utc says:
      0
      0

      rocketdyne doesnt have experienced personnel or large machinery to make new rs-25 engines ( but will take nasa money to develop them anyway). gencorp doesnt have the capability of funding it either.

      • Steven Rappolee says:
        0
        0

        I was thinking of the air force request for information contract in the mix
        DOD and NASA funds for a three way fly off between a Methane RS-25 verient,BE-4 and possibly the SpaceX Methane engine
        The duel fuel study from the 1970’s suggests An SLS CBC or Delta heavy could have a methane or methane slush feed into a LH2 core

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          Was Spacex the first to start with this current methane engine thing? Isnt everyone playing follow the leader because Elon decided that he needed a big methane engine Raptor for his Mars colonial transporter???
          or did Jeff start it?

          • Steven Rappolee says:
            0
            0

            Well you use the word “current” On my blog I have the NASA methane SSME study, its dated 1978 the NASA methane gelled in LH2 I think is from the late 1990’s.Both are worth downloading and reading.Both are on the NTRS data base.

            https://yellowdragonblogdot

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            I knew there is a history. I’ll do it, thanks 🙂

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            In ancient times I attended the final Solar Power Satellite conference. Both Lockheed and Boeing presented concepts using big two-stage fully-reusable shuttles with both stages methane fueled. The SpaceX BFR first stage is already planned to land at the launch site. The second stage goes all the way to orbit. Instead of discarding it Elon could combine it with the spacecraft to have a reusable vehicle that would return to earth and land with a combination of sophisticated aerodynamics and powered lift. Except for the absence of full-sized wings, this would be the original TSTO fully reusable concept of the 1970s.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            I googled TSTO shuttle concept designs 🙂

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          Can Methane for rockets be made from human or animal waste??
          lol
          Elon Musk makes deal with public utilities to recycle S#$t in his rocket fuel giga factory to reduce the cost of his reusable rockets.

          Fueling the Inner Solor system Rail Road

  10. Antilope7724 says:
    0
    0

    The NASA of today seems to be somewhat the opposite of Apollo days. In the Apollo days, a destination was chosen (the moon) and hardware was developed to go there.

    Today the hardware is being developed without a real destination or purpose.

    • Odyssey2020 says:
      0
      0

      Yeah, I know. NASA’s not sending humans anywhere for a long while.

    • Robert Sevigny says:
      0
      0

      There are two reasons for that. First, there was a clear objective and successor President’s didn’t constantly change it and cancel the previous programs — and the equipment that had been purchased and or built. Second, the budget today is much lower than in the 60’s in terms of constant dollars. Since the booster seems to be the long pole in the tent in terms of any future mission, that development needed to be done first, and then the spacecraft (capsule). We are having to design and build it a piece at a time. Not ideal but the only way we can move forward for the moment. Clear?

      • Steven Rappolee says:
        0
        0

        early thursday morning Bolden was interviewed during the first Orion launch attempt, he spoke of cislunar habitats and a “International Lunar lander” for SLS so perhaps there is a plan B

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Kennedy started the ball rolling, the next president Johnson halted production on the Sat V and the next President, Nixon’s budget. proposal defunded it and canceled the last flights of the Sat V.

        So you are incorrent ALL successor Presidents had a hand in closing the Apollo program because it was to expensive.

        The method Johnson used was to parse out work to as many political districts as possible to get the funding. It created the monster we are saddled with today.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      That is not the only difference. Apollo/Saturn was given a “blank check” because manned spaceflight was a proxy war with the Soviet Union and the US was out to prove its scientific, technological, and economic superiority over the Soviet Union.

      But, even during the Cold War, there were limits. NASA’s funding was cut well before the first moon landing. NASA originally planned on Apollo/Saturn as being the basis for manned space travel for many years to come.

      But, it was not to be. The Apollo/Saturn program was seen as far too expensive to be sustainable in the long term. The solution was a three pronged approach to a space transportation system which consisted of a space station, an orbital space tug, and the space shuttle. But even that proved to be too much for NASA’s budget, so all we got was the space shuttle to be followed by a space station decades later. The orbital space tug never materialized.

      History is repeating itself. So far, only SLS and Orion are being developed for future “deep space” missions. Unfortunately, NASA cannot afford to develop the modules needed for actual “deep space” missions. We’re on track to repeat the 1980’s, only with a far lower flight rate than the space shuttle.

  11. Joe Denison says:
    0
    0

    I never said there was enough money to do every single thing known to man. I just said that I think we should spend money on SLS/Orion and ISS/CC. Right now we are spending less than 0.2% on manned spaceflight. I hardly think that is breaking the bank.

    Even accepting your numbers for the sake of discussion she is off by a factor of 2. If I said SpaceX was getting $6 Billion for CCtCap I am sure everyone here would call me on it. (and rightfully so)

    Lets say SLS/Orion are canceled and the remaining manned spaceflight budget remains constant relative to 2014 dollars. (around $4 Billion in 2014 dollars). Over 23 years that gives you $92 Billion dollars. All that money will be spent anyway regardless of what happens with SLS/Orion.

    So even accepting those numbers over 23 years here are the three scenarios:

    NASA total budget (without SLS/Orion so around $15 Billion a year): $345 Billion

    NASA total budget (without SLS/Orion but NASA somehow keeps the money currently invested in them): $414 Billion

    NASA total budget (with an extra $6 Billion a year from now (I don’t think that much is needed but I am using that number for the sake of discussion): $552 Billion

    If we are spending $350 Billion anyway to get pretty much nothing more than we have right now why is it so horrible to spend a little more to actually get us to Mars.

    (also its important to note that the federal government will have spent around $92 Trillion over this time period so the money we are talking about is chump change).

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      You say “If we are spending $350 Billion anyway to get pretty much nothing more
      than we have right now why is it so horrible to spend a little more to
      actually get us to Mars.” shows you assume that the NASA budget will at some point in the future be increased to actually “get us to Mars”.

      If the current program with the current level of funding can’t get us to Mars, something should be done to change that. But, continuing to throw good money after bad isn’t always the best answer.

  12. Half Moon says:
    0
    0

    Ms. Garver clearly is choosing her words carefully in this interview; which she needs to do to remain viable as the Clinton White House NASA Administrator. And you don’t reach the level of stratosphere where jobs are politically appointed without political acumen. She’s good in that sense.

    I fully expect an Augustine II commission in Spring of 2017 to reach the same conclusions about this “Mars Program” , as Augustine I did regarding Constellation.

    Only this time, I would not be surprised if the remedy is cancellation of NASA HSF, as there is no will to fund what is necessary to reach Mars, and there really isn’t a case to be made for committing such a monstrosity of monies for such an endeavor. Indeed, there hasn’t been a strong case for NASA HSF since Apollo – and those sets of circumstances will never repeat them selves.

    • hikingmike says:
      0
      0

      I thought we were up to Augustine IV by now 🙂

      Just imagine if we spent the same money developing and sending up robots to the Moon to build us some ISRU capability and pave the way for humans. We could probably build most of a human habitat even. I picked the Moon since it’s closer. Of course Mars is the next obvious destination once we build up capability.

      • Darren E says:
        0
        0

        My preference for a Human Space Flight destination is a landing/base on Deimos or Phobos first, just imagine the views of Mars! It’s also much cheaper to go there as you don’t have to enter/exit the gravity well of Mars.

        Also those moons are likely to be full of material from Mars that has been ejected over the years. That can be directly studied and samples brought back to Earth

        You could also operate a Mars surface rover in real-time from the moons. Or several of them.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      NASA centers are in Republican districts on both the house and now the senate, the NASA human spaceflight porktrain is going nowhere.

  13. Paul Newton says:
    0
    0

    The Orion approach is completely wrong and wasteful. By the time such a return vehicle might be needed, in 20 to 30 years, it is likely that another vehicle would have been available to support the purpose.

    ISS today is very similar to the design of a cis-lunar or interplanetary vehicle. Such a vehicle will require similar habitable modules, similar power, thermal, data and communications systems. Most of the space program expertise in place today in NASA is ISS-experienced. It would have been very easy to develop a sortie vehicle based directly on ISS. The vehicle could have reached high earth orbits, cis-lunar trajectories, lunar missions, and with some modifications even planetary fly-bys. This vehicle could have served as a test bed for testing alternative propulsion and other systems. This vehicle could have been ready for launching first elements in a few years. it could have been available for Webb servicing missions or even an asteroid mission. The significance was in taking the existing expertise and extending it, and taking the existing technology and extending that, and developing the needed new technologies.

    The entire focus is instead today on Orion, which is very limited in the missions it can perform. Human space flight money is focused n exactly the wrong area.

    In order to have engaged NASA management should have defined a logical path and should have been arguing for this path before the President and Congress, just as Fletcher with Shuttle in the early 1970s, and just as Beggs did with Station in the early 1980s. Bush gave NASA cart blanche, but Griffin screwed up when he defined Constellation to try and rebuild Apollo, which was never in the cards because it would have required tripling the human space budget. NASA managers over reached to try and build an Ares 5, together with an Orion capsule and an Altair lander. They could not afford this. Griffin and his supporters screwed up.

    When Obama came in, they saw NASA’s weakness and vulnerability and Obama and Holdren entered the vacuum left by NASA management and they micromanaged their way into an asteroid program, which had no purpose.

    Congress, was rightly concerned about jobs and funding for their space districts, I am convinced they did not know what to do though a few select senators knew they had to do something. They saw the viability of extending Shuttle to become a new heavy lift launcher. This was always a likely outcome, though the expense and outcome made a lot more sense before all the Shuttle hardware lines had been shut down for 2-3 years, and before the workers were laid off.

    If NASA and Congress had been looking for logic, they would have seen the logic of moving ISS people off of the current program, since assembly was complete and the same numbers of workers should no longer have been needed, and the workers should have been moved onto a program that made use of the ISS expertise to develop something like the Nautilus-X, which could have served Shuttle-like purposes, first in low earth orbit, and eventually in cis-lunar space. This would have served as a technology and scientific test bed for deep space missions,

    Once confidence had been built in flying the ISS derived cislunar vehicle to deep space distances and SLS development completed, then lunar or planetary surface landers, habitats and rovers could have been contemplated.

    I think the screw up has everything to do with NASA management screw-ups, weakness, and lack of pro-activity. NASA’s management vacuum and lack of a viable plan led directly to micromanagement of a poorly thought out asteroid strategy by Obama.

    Congress had a more viable strategy to convert Shuttle assets to an HLV, though they waited far too long to implement it.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      it sounds like you’re talking about something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik

    • Steve Pemberton says:
      0
      0

      “ISS today is very similar to the design of a cis-lunar or interplanetary vehicle”

      I am not sure how suitable anything based on ISS would be for a trip to Mars (or other planets you mentioned interplanetary). ISS was designed as a LEO platform and that’s a big difference for several reasons. First it was built with the expectation that there will be very light accelerations. The station reboosts and avoidance maneuvers that occur are very gentle, the astronauts feel it but it just causes them to drift in the cabin. But even those mild accelerations cause flexing of the ISS structure, higher accelerations would cause even more flexing. The ISS structure wasn’t designed for the high accelerations needed to inject towards Mars. That doesn’t mean that the layout couldn’t be redesigned more inline but still the modules and their connectors may or may not be suitable for those type of accelerations. Yes I realize that the modules were launched with several g but each module was secured in the Shuttle cargo bay (or Proton), not just connected end to end with other modules with all of them having to hold together during strong acceleration. Certainly it’s technically possible I’m just saying I’m not sure the current module connections can safely handle that type of stress, thus requiring possibly a major redesign.

      The truss would flex quite a bit putting stress on its attachment points. The solar panels would I’m sure have to be retracted, but I don’t know if you remember but they had a bit of a problem with several of them deploying, and later with retracting and redeploying when they had to move panels. Maybe trusses and solar panels can be positioned somehow to handle high accelerations but more likely they would have to be completely redesigned.

      Also the solar panels become much less effective as the spacecraft gets farther from the Sun, so either larger solar panels are needed or else other forms of power are needed. Although one advantage is that the solar panels would be in sunlight all the time instead of being in darkness half the time like they are in LEO so that would help offset the greater distance.

      Speaking of LEO, ISS was designed to fly inside the Van Allen belts. A trip to Mars will require shielding. Can they just add shielding to the existing module design? Maybe. But if a module is designed from the beginning for beyond LEO missions they might be able to do that more efficiently with less weight. And in fact there is a belief that inflatable modules may counterintuitively be safer than a metal skin, because when a particle hits the metal skin of a module it then creates a spray of smaller particles which are less energetic but still dangerous, something that doesn’t happen with inflatable materials.

      And since we are talking flexible modules, those may turn out to be more efficient and provide greater volume than the ISS type of module, which is why there is so much interest in the Bigelow designs. Perhaps there will be a mix of rigid and flexible modules, but that would be different than the current ISS design.

      Then we have supplies. ISS was designed to be resupplied at least every few months, however for multi-year voyages they will have to figure out how to store a huge amount of consumables.

      And then there is artificial gravity. The advancements made in the past few years in exercise protocols and diet could mean that it will be possible for a crew to go to Mars and back without artificial gravity. But if it turns out that artificial gravity is needed, then the big question is how much. If spending time in a centrifuge each day is enough that’s one thing, but if the entire structure has to rotate or be tethered to another object in rotation, that changes the whole dynamics of the structure.

      Last but not least, ISS took a long, long time to assemble, and it required nearly 1,000 hours of EVA. It was designed with the Shuttle in mind to provide the necessary EVA and robotics capability to assemble the station. Without a Shuttle, and without a willingness to invest that many hours of EVA, the current ISS design is not really practical for the future, where we would like to get things assembled quicker and with less cost, which points to a completely new design.

      I am not saying that the technology and lessons learned building the current ISS won’t be helpful in designing an interplanetary module but I just don’t believe it will wind up being very similar to ISS.

      • Paul Newton says:
        0
        0

        No one said you had to use the entire ISS or some high thrust rocket engines. ISS has been testing out many of the right elements and systems for a cislunar or planetary mission.

        • Steve Pemberton says:
          0
          0

          “No one said you had to use the entire ISS

          Including me. I said nothing about using the entire ISS. I said specifically “based on ISS” because I understood that to be what the discussion was about and that you weren’t talking about simply flinging the existing ISS towards Mars. That’s why for example I mentioned a possible inline configuration. I mentioned nothing about the number of modules, I only discussed the suitability of the modules themselves for interplanetary trips.

          “or some high thrust rocket engines

          It is unlikely in the foreseeable future (which I assume is what we are talking about since we are discussing re-purposing ISS modules) that we’ll have the capability to gently nudge a manned interplanetary vehicle out of Earth’s orbit for a long, long leisurely trip to Mars, and then a nice gentle deceleration into Mars orbit. And then later reverse the process for a nice, long, leisurely trip back to Earth. Since even the fastest Mars trip will be pushing the envelope for human endurance I don’t see how normal spacecraft acceleration can be avoided at least at one or more points in the trip.

          “”ISS has been testing out many of the right elements and systems for a cislunar or planetary mission.”

          Right systems – I already agreed to that, when I acknowledged that technology developed for ISS (I meant life support, etc.) can be applied to an interplanetary vehicle.

          Right elements – if you feel that derivatives of the current ISS elements will be suitable for an interplanetary vehicle you are welcome to your opinion. I listed my reasons why I think they may not be. A manned trip to Mars is absolutely pushing the envelope to the maximum, and I believe the vehicles will have to be custom designed and built to be the most efficient for that task, and that includes easy on-orbit assembly with minimal EVA or ideally no EVA required. For the various reasons that I listed I doubt if it’s going to work to re-purpose ISS modules for the task. My opinion.

  14. objose says:
    0
    0

    Learned more from you. HOWEVER: “once they fly Falcon Heavy next year they would have proved they can build the world’s biggest booster in service for zero cost to tax payers” FH caries 21,000kg to GTO. Not playing in SLS territory. Oh and the COTS money is taxpayer money.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      The COTS money was paid for a service, which SpaceX is providing cheaper than Orbital. Once the money is paid to SpaceX it is SpaceX money, not taxpayer money. If it were Boeing, the money would go to the stockholders. Since it is SpaceX, the money goes into internally financed R&D.

      • objose says:
        0
        0

        ” Once the {taxpayer} money is paid to SpaceX it is SpaceX money, not taxpayer money.” Ok then. This is, I would say a unique way of looking at things. 🙂

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          No it is not a unique way of looking at things, it is the factual way of looking at things. The federal government ordered a federal agency, NASA, to procure both a product and service that currently didn’t exist. NASA, to insure that the competiting firms would have the both the expertise and experience to build to their specifications ordered PRODUCTS. Those products were called milestones. The competing firms had to build those products with their own dime. Once the product, (milestone) was completed to the costumer’s satisfaction then and only then did the competing firm get paid for each product. SpaceX was paid for providing a REQUESTED product which they produced with THEIR money.
          So tell me .. how else can you spin that?
          These were not cost plus fixed fee, sole sourced FAR contracts where the usual suspects do not invest a dime. COTS firms invested their own money, built a product with their money and when the costumer was satified they paid for the product they ordered.

          • objose says:
            0
            0

            Eventually, they still get tax payer $. Boeing stock holders still get tax payer $. Sorry, I am not asking you to reply. It is the only way I can see it without a “remedial math course” that I have no time to attend.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            We all have different viewpoints and I have the greatest respect for those who hold different opinions. It’s just a matter of how federal contracting works. In some cases, i.e. SLS, the contractor is paid directly by the government to do development work. In other cases (Boeing commercial aircraft) the company gets paid for delivering a product. The money it has left over after it pays costs is profit. It can pay it out as bonuses to execs, give it to stockholders as dividends, or invest it in capital expansion or research and development.

    • EtOH says:
      0
      0

      21,000kg to GTO, not to LEO (which is where the standard comparison of payload is usually made, i.e. the SLS’s 70 tons) FH is set to carry 53,000 kg to LEO. It will carry about 75% of the payload of a Block I SLS, which will make it the heaviest class launcher until what, 2019? Also, waaaaaaaay cheaper.

  15. AstroInMI says:
    0
    0

    I finally had a chance to read through all these comments. Excellent stuff both for and against! One general comment: whatever may be best, I’m kind of troubled by “old technology” automatically being “bad technology.” Maybe it’s because I’m old, too, I don’t know. 🙂 But, as an example, I drive a 2000 Accord to work everyday and it does what it’s supposed to do. It gets me to work. I could get a newer car, sure, but I’d still end up at the same place I need to be. If something works, which in the case of say, the shuttle engines, it shouldn’t be a closed case not to use them because they are old.

    • JadedObs says:
      0
      0

      Nor, for that matter, should you not use internal combustion engines just because they are over a century old.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        I agree, but if Elon proves correct with his huge investment in new battery manufacturing technology some of us may not be using IC engines much longer.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Personally I have nothing against technology just because it is old or comes from a traditional manufacturer. The Aerojet RL-10 has been around since 1959, longer than human spaceflight itself, but it remains an excellent solution for what it does; light in weight, elegantly simple in design, with good performance and reasonable cost. Conversely, the large segmented SRBs create a pyramid of requirements for massive facilities and GSE and hazardous ops that contributed a large part of the high operating cost of the Shuttle. The boosters and even the need to segment them for shipment across the country were created to satisfy political rather than engineering requirements, and they are simply not competitive with modern liquid fueled boosters. The RS-25 is somewhere in between. It has excellent performance and made sense for a reusable vehicle like the Shuttle, but it is much too expensive for an expendable LV like the SLS.

  16. AstroInMI says:
    0
    0

    “she is not that far off?” Her estimate is $500 billion. Yours is $250 billion. If you consider that not far off, would you mind being my program manager the next time I ask for a budget increase? 🙂

  17. Paul Newton says:
    0
    0

    I think that what Lori is saying is that the program has become something of a joke. A lot of money is being spent, a lot of people are being kept on the job, and those 2 things would not be so bad if one didn’t come to the realization that we are getting so little for the money and time invested. If NASA and old space want to be kept on the job, that is only natural, But NASA and Lockheed ought to actually accomplish something on a schedule and budget which can be justified. Why could Musk build his capsules for something like 1/4 the money and 1/3 of the time spent on Orion. Don’t tell me that Orion is high tech; It is not, it is lower tech than Dragon and not nearly as complete.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      That is the problem, you can not have both. The budget allows for high employment and no hardware, or layoffs and hardware. Congress always chooses jobs in districts over actual space hardware.

  18. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Miss Garver’s smile reminds me of a cat that just ate the canary 🙂

    Comment 100

  19. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    Having been working in the heart of human space flight for multiple decades, and having been enthused and committed to the program since a young age, I can tell you I am still enthused about working in the program. This is despite lousy management which is often corrupt, which has shown zero leadership for many years, which selects and promotes their buddies based on nepotism or favoritism and which often results in an inability to get the job done. Bolden and some others now in the high echelons should not be too impressed with themselves over this. They have been the problem and not the solution. We love the program in spite of them; not because of them.