Luke Skywalker Nominated To Run NASA
Support builds for Bridenstine to lead NASA despite past skepticism on climate change, Washington Post
“In addition to backing work with younger, entrepreneurial firms, Bridenstine has also voiced his support for the traditional industrial base, made up of behemoths such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing. They want to ensure that programs such as the Space Launch System, the massive rocket being developed by NASA, and the Orion crew capsule continue, even though they’ve been criticized for being well over budget and behind schedule. “It’s not ‘or.’ It’s ‘and,’ ” said Eric Stallmer, president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation. “It’s the notion that you can have the traditional approach and you can have this newer commercial approach, and both could yield great benefits to the agency. Bridenstine understands as well as anyone the capabilities that are offered by both of these sectors.”
Jim Bridenstine, Trump’s pick to lead NASA, is eager to see humans on the moon and Mars, LA Times
“It’s a different kind of pick, obviously,” said John Logsdon, a professor emeritus and founder of George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute. “He comes without experience in maintaining a large organization and without direct space program experience. He doesn’t come out of the aerospace industry. On the other hand, he’s spent a lot of time thinking about NASA, thinking about the space program. I think he comes better prepared intellectually to take on the job than most people that have held the position.”
Trump’s Pick For NASA’s New Administrator Used to Own a Rocket Racing Team, Motherboard
“Trump tapped Rep. Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma to fill the role of NASA administrator. Unlike NASA administrators of the past, Bridenstine–a climate change denier, former fighter pilot, and moon lover–doesn’t have any science education or background. But boy, does he love planes. He owned a team in the short-lived Rocket League Racing, the brainchild of a bunch of rich guys who just wanted to see some stuff go real fast. … As part of a required financial disclosure from the House of Representatives, This Land notes that in order to buy in on RRL, he made an investment that was, in his words, “not that big.” They report that it was somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000–he sold four houses and a five-acre ranchette to do it. In light of Trump’s pick for head of NASA, let’s take a look at Bridenstine’s ill-fated hobby.”
Keith’s note: Bridenstine may not be everything that everyone traditionally wants a NASA Administrator to be. But he also has some qualities that his predecessors may have lacked. I do not get the impression that he scares easily and he’s apparently willing to take risks and make leaps of faith. NASA has not done much of that in a long time. A dose of this might just be what the agency needs. Just sayin’
There certainly are worse potential Administrator nominees, for sure. And if he’s pragmatic and canny enough to build a partnership with U.S./NASA allies and Commercial Space to get a Manned Lunar Lander made to complement the SLS/Orion… Then there could be human bootprints on the Moon again around about the time that ISS is scheduled to splash into the Pacific, around 2028 or so (best case). And probably before China gets there, too.
Yeah; some of you are gonna whine “Been there; done that” or “Flags & Footprints Suck” or “Moondoggle! Robots are better” or “You’re nuts! Mars is the place to go – there MUST be a spare $200 or $300 billion dollars down the back of the couch, somewhere. Hold my beer…”
Leave Mars to Elon – IF he can accomplish it. And to Rovers and probes, too. For a modest budget increase (pick a number out of thin air) NASA could look at a NASA/ESA/JAXA/Commercial alliance to start with one, then two week manned sortie missions… Then build up to an eventual ‘simple’ man-tended Outpost. Much smarter folks than me (there’s a few) will know that the Moon and Cislunar space is the answer for manned space operations for the next couple of decades. That is; if they’re honest.
I know Bob Zubrin might raise hell about manned Lunar missions as a refocus. Bob; I love ya, man. But even you must be a pragmatist about this – there just is not squillions of dollars around for Mars. Not when there’s tens of billions in Hurricane damage to fix. Go work for Elon or Bezos, Brother – help them on their way. Just sayin’…
If humans return to the Moon it should be with a sustainable program. Like LEO, unless was can support at least 100 people on the Moon on a continuing bases, including scientists and tourists, at a cost that the organizations that sponsor science or the tourists themselves can support, the program will not be sustainable. Some say Apollo has “been there”. I would say this is not true if we are referring to a sustainable human presence. But in this case whether we get there “first” is irrelevant. If we are speaking of winning a race, then yes, we have already done that, and China has no inclination to engage us in another race.
Will Bridenstine do the needful: cancel SLS?
No. Please explain how anyone would ever take NASA seriously again if a large booster project was cancelled twice in less than a decade? Besides Congressional support (and that of staff inside the White House) is overwhelming for SLS. There may be some tweaks (I predict a human will never fly on it FWIW) but SLS is not going to be cancelled by NASA or anyone else. That is just how it is.
One will never take NASA rocket science seriously again with incredibly expendable architecture and the rocket and capsule to nowhere. There is simply zero justification for retaining the super, shuttle derived HLV, and that was before the multiple reuse landings on land and water.
Ares I was the result of Congress directing Griffin in 2005 to retain shuttle derived, the ‘wrong’ way to get to space. Unfortunately, LAS mass grew from 4 to 10mT when combined with solids, so Ares I could not get off the *&^%$# ground and CxP was cancelled.
Congress then *mandated* “70 and 130mT” in 2010 and NASA had to resort to the more expensive option of multple launches of a 100mT LV for BEO and ‘commercial’ for LEO access, because *NO ONE* would launch a 1B+, 10mT capsule on a seldom flown 1B+, 100mT+ super HLV LEO when the alternatives have flight proven reliability at 10X less cost.
A Climate Change Denier that thinks consolidation of Earth Science (not rockets!) with zero overlaps is required –not even qualified for an entry level position.
NASA’s Congressionally Mandated Rocket Science is almost on par with flicking fingers, close, but not quite there. SLS/Orion..the gifts that keep on giving.
http://dilbert.com/strip/19…
Dude. SLS is not going to be cancelled. Deal with it 😉
If, as you suggest, SLS never flies humans and NASA winds up spending decades on it and tens of billions of dollars, while the private sector is flying much less expensive reusable rockets with humans, I do not see how NASA retains its credibility. If SLS is a mistake, better to start over again, then to go forward with an enormously expensive bad idea. The new administrator should also question whether NASA even needs to be in the business of designing its own spacecraft if numerous acceptable private sector alternatives are available. Remember, Trump wanted to put humans on the first flight and was rebuffed. If we get into his second term and the costs keep skyrocketing and the schedule keeps slipping, it will get cancelled. Hopefully, with Bridenstine, common sense will prevail instead of NASA’s current thinking of that’s how we have always done things, so we have to keep doing them the same way.
You do not seem to understand. Bridenstine cannot cancel SLS unless Congress and the White House agree. Common sense has nothing to do with this. If it did there would not be a SLS program in the first place.
Agreed. If it HAD to be Shuttle Derived; it probably should have been the Sidemount, big fairing design introduced by John Shannon. Not my favourite launcher choice – but it would have been flying years earlier for billions less, with much more verisimilitude with the Shuttle infrastructure. Even if it only ended up being a cargo launcher to assemble manned expeditions, some folk believed – Rocket Scientist type folk – it was not impossible to use it with a launch escape system. https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/36…
Totally agree. It would have had less lift capacity but it would have been available much sooner for a fraction of the cost. But no. They do not think logically at NASA.
Yes – I heard anecdotes from my JSC Senior Engineer friend when I was in Houston this time a year ago that a lot of people were virtually foot-stomping and bang a fist-furious that it wasn’t adopted when Constellation was in mortal danger of cancellation. They did cost analysis and several archived and probably now deleted Design Reference Missions that had the Shannon Sidemount assembling a small Lunar Outpost out of 5x launches of the beast. These would be cargo flights, unmanned.
If the RS-25 production line could have produced another 15x engines and the E.T. line another 5x tanks – this would have used up the existing supply of SRB casings, too. Then, when the engine supply had run out, transitioning to Orion and lightweight ‘Altair’ landers on a Commercial launcher or more likely, twinned launches of Delta IV or Atlas V-Heavies. Or, the other alternative would be to have 9 or 10x, week-long ‘Sortie’ missions to the Lunar surface with 2x Astronauts per flight on the Sidemounts..
Not as grandiose as Mike Griffin’s Constellation with 4x Astronauts and mega-launchers… But it would still eclipse Apollo and after the Dinosaur Shuttle Hardware was finished; the phasing in of cheaper and more efficient Commercial solutions and reusable spacecraft… …Sorry guys – I escaped into a parallel universe there for a moment. But it was a happy, Space Cadet glow 🙁
And if sidemount had been built, the “pork” could have been kept flowing by producing more SRB casings, more ETs, and even expendable RS-25 engines. The big advantage would have been slashing development costs, manufacturing costs, and infrastructure costs since all the “shuttle bits” would have been kept exactly the same (except for the RS-25E).
The sidemount HLV would have been practical only if the Shuttle itself had continued to fly. This would have allowed the synergy of using the same facilities and allowed the HLV to be designed for cargo only.
Not if there was only enough money to fly X-number of Shuttle & Shuttle derived vehicles per year! We could NOT have expected a major budget increase to fly both – Sidemount would likely have had to do a segue takeover of operations. And a Shuttle Sidemount Cargo or crew launcher would only need to have happened in that context if it were taking over from the $50 billion Ares family to conduct lunar missions, or occasionally send big planetary probes on their ways. The ‘Direct’ launcher guys also had an idea to fly rather large cargo pallets or ‘sleds’ up to ISS occasionally – this is a job the Sidemount could also have done.
What might have been workable in the vehicle’s early years would be to have a maximum of 5 or 6 Shuttle-derived launches per annum: using the same launchpads that could be 3x Shuttle Orbiter flights to ISS and 2x Sidemount flights to wherever. Retiring one Shuttle and only keeping two flying 2 or 3 times per annum until Commercial Crew vehicles were finished their test flights would have been an excellent outcome – but there was no money and leadership (related).
Then; all Shuttle-derived flights after that could have been for Orions and Crew Landers to the Moon… Assuming of course, that there still WAS a manned Lunar program coming into being after the Shuttle Orbiters were retired. With some rational leadership from Dr Griffin and his successors (!?) – not to mention from the whole leadership chain-of-command… That is the American Manned Space Program that could have been had, with only a modest NASA budget increase and some pragmatic decisions to complement them. But that is NOT the world we’ve had for the last decade, eh? 🙁
This argument makes zero sense. Just because the shuttle stopped flying doesn’t mean that a side-mount HLV can’t fly anymore.
The problem with an inline shuttle derived HLV has always been the fact that “a few tweaks” to the shuttle design ends up being a “complete redesign”.
Put in simpler terms, better is the enemy of good enough.
Precisely, Jeff.
The fundamental problem is not the tweaks, although they increase development cost. The problem is the operating cost, which in any sustained program is many times the development cost. The primary cost drivers of the Shuttle were the massive facilities and laborious and hazardous procedures required to process it, particularly the enormous SRBs. Conceptually simple and cheap to develop, the SRBs are and will always be extremely expensive to manufactutre, process, and assemble, and required the comparably massive launch abort system which made Orion too heavy for the Ares I to launch. Had the Shuttle continued to fly, the facilities costs, though inordinate, would have already been committed to the STS, so would not have been new fixed overhead for the HLV.
But as it is, the entire infrastructure that processes and launches SLS has only one customer, and maintenance and operations of the vast and complex facilities, including the VAB, MLP and crawler, add to the fixed overhead that, in combnination with a low launch rate, inflate the launch cost of the SLS beyond any sustainable level.
I wish it weren’t true. I do not oppose the SLS or any other concept on political, emotional, philosophical or esthetic grounds. It is strictly a matter of industrial engineering. The lack of attention to accurate and unbiased prediction of total operational cost and its relationship to design has been one of the fundamental deficiencies of the US space program.
Agreed that inline versus side-mount doesn’t change the reoccurring launch costs much. Any way you look at it, in the long run “shuttle derived” launchers will always be expensive to launch and will have a quite limited flight rate (although one could argue side-mount could support at least the same flight rate as the shuttle did while SLS is going to have an even lower flight rate).
Side-mount would have at least allowed the reuse (with minor modifications) of much of the existing shuttle infrastructure while inline necessarily requires expensive rework of that very same infrastructure. This means development and changes to infrastructure are more costly (and time consuming) for inline.
That’s not entirely fair. There is a sort of logic behind SLS. What is the best way to assure full employment at NASA centers? What is the best way to spend government money in the desired congregational districts? Given those goals, SLS is perfectly logical.
No. one could spend the same 3B on depots, tugs, habitats, ISRU, long duration crew health, nuclear powe and propulsion, …. get the idea?
I didn’t say I agreed with the logic. Just that, if your goal is to spend money in the right congregational districts, SLS isn’t a bad way to do it. Your suggestions, while actually accomplishing something useful, would not achieve that goal. Take nuclear power and propulsion. The money would probably be spent in New Mexico, Idaho and northern California. Those aren’t the right states (or districts) as far as influential congressmen are concerned. If this were an engineering problem, there would be better ways to spend a few billion. Unfortunately, this is about political logic not engineering logic.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
I’ll stop whining about SLS when the advocates admit its a stupid, wasteful program.
Do you really want to spend the rest of your life whining about SLS? Because it’s going to be at least that long until SLS advocates admit anything negative about that project.
It makes me happy.
Wait, what do you mean “the rest of my life”?
Well, I didn’t mean to imply anything about your age or health. But I think I can safely assume neither one of us will be around an hundred years from now. My best guess is that the current SLS advocates will not change their claims before then.
Just an attempt at a Simpsons reference.
“God, what’s the meaning of life?”
“You’ll find out when you die.”
“Oh, I can’t wait that long.”
“You can’t wait 6 months?”
I agree, but once SLS ends up flying once or twice, after all the work and money, will anyone take NASA seriously again?
The SLS brings over $3 billion a year in federal money to key Congressional Districts. That is it’s real mission. Indeed it’s the only reason that kept HSF going at NASA after Project Apollo.
Also remember the denizens of the Swamp are at their most dangerous when you try to get between them and their money. He wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the hearing if he proposed taking their Senate Launch System away. As a member of Congress he knows it. Be grateful if after he is appointed he will be able to throw some crumbs to New Space and lunar Development.
If you are referring to the space geeks, they already don’t. For the general public, the subject is too obscure, they won’t be concerned one way or the other. For Congress the issue of whether the SLS succeeds as a launch vehicle is irrelevant, the question is whether it satisfies the lobbyists who are their real employers. I agree with Keith and Thomas on this. The agency is committed to this program.
Given the cost, it seems unlikely that the SLS will fly more than a few times, then be retired in favor of commercial launch vehicles. But no one will suggest that it was not a success.
The SLS vs. FH argument is so emblematic of governmental mismanagement that one would think even uninformed folks would be perks up.
They are do not.
My own efforts to explain the extent of this boondoggle to half a dozen folks over the past few years has resulted in glassy eyes.
OK, but NASA has cancelled quite a few projects over the decades, Keith, many because rapid dismantling was taken as “failure”, or because a single component couldn’t be brought up to specification. None of the projects I’m thinking of, though, had anywhere near the sunk costs of SLS.
And this: SLS is going to be one beautiful damn rocket. And when it is finally sitting on the launch pad, gleaming in the Florida sun, it will become the symbol that NASA so needs. The first launch will be covered just like Apollo, network anchors down at the Cape, all blabbering that “NASA is Back, baby!”
And if that’s true- if that actually happens- then maybe e SLS will have been worth it.
There is some sense in that. Unfortunately, if the politician is more interested in pork than results, the outcome can be quite similar.