Obama’s tough decisions will lead nation forward in space, opinion, Mark Kelly, Orlando Sentinel
“The decision to commercialize certain parts of our space program was not easy. I was not a fan at first of canceling the Constellation rocket program. I worried about what it would mean for NASA’s overall mission, and what it would do to the brilliant and patriotic men and women who work there. But I’m impressed by how far SpaceX has come in the past 17 months. And it’s a bargain: The dramatic cost savings of commercial spaceflight — savings we need to reduce the deficit and grow our economy — let us expand the frontiers of space and stay at the forefront of technological innovation. The president made a tough, bold decision — and I now believe he was right. It’s part of a series of tough decisions he has made to stand by NASA and especially Florida’s Space Coast. The president is investing in work-force training to connect Space Coast workers with emerging clean-energy businesses.”
We’ve been watching the death of the American space program for a long time. It has really been happening in earnest since about the time of Challenger in 1986. That was when NASA had an opportunity to refocus on making major enhancements to Shuttle, but didn’t. That was when station’s development should have moved out with all due haste, but didn’t. So we have seen 25 years of the slow roll of the NASA bureaucracy, the lack of new development, the focus on operations at the expense of research and science. The program got into the hands of an elite corp of people who forgot what it was all about. The Griffin era terminated a lot of what NASA was about because of the single minded quest to built a retro spaceship the rationale for which has never been explained and he stole the little money going into R&D and science in order to give Constellation all the cash he could, unfortunately because of the poor selection of untrained managers and the lack of real development for the huge cash outlays, we see where all that got us. That is one of the reasons why we have an ISS today without much useful science happening -what a waste- and no way for US astronauts to go and come back apart from an expensive ride with one of our partners. Remember, Space-X, Dragon and Falcon got started in the same time frame as Constellation, Orion and Ares. Space-X, with a small focused team, has a functional flying space vehicle and a clearly laid out plan to go to the moon and Mars. Orion has a shell that will be tested in a couple of years to see if its retro heat shield works. Space-X has spent about $800 million, only half of which was paid for by the American taxpayer. Constellation/Orion/Ares/SLS has now spent about $18 billion? NASA keeps trying to make us believe the Orion that flies in a couple years is a functional space vehicle. I think most of us are tired of NASA’s expensive lies and its non existent leadership. I think it needs to start with a wholesale replacement of the NASA human space flight managers. They have failed us. NASA needs an overhaul. Whether it is Obama or Romney, hopefully we will see some serious change next year.
“I think it needs to start with a wholesale replacement of the NASA human space flight managers. They have failed us. NASA needs an overhaul.”
NASA Human Spaceflight, with Ares, SLS and Orion, is delivering exactly what Congress wants. It has failed the space community, but done well by the rocket designers on Capitol Hill.
I don’t think this is quite true. Congress wants to spend money, particularly in specific places. It is NASA’s job to deliver value for the dollar. The human space flight budget has been fairly constant but NASA has delivered less and less for the billions spent. The Space-X accomplishment shows what can be achieved with about 1/50th the amount of money spent to date on Orion and its rockets. Congress was happy to spend that amount of money. NASA has delivered essentially nothing for the dollars spent.
We are now hearing the SLS will fly in 2 years. Do you believe it? We also heard in the last week that they have only just passed a preliminary design review.
John:
You quote is from… where?
tinker
In the 80’s, Goldin terminated the institutional ability to do real system engineering in NASA (recall: “NASA is not a jobs program for engineers”) and morphed it into a contract management and oversight organization. [DISCLAIMER: That is by no means to say that there are not pockets of highly successful and effective engineering abilities within NASA – note I said “institutional”.] Industry basically held the IP to do space hardware development – and in accordance with the mantra today, it should.
Then we lost Challenger because of political engineering. We honored the fallen, picked ourselves up, learned a few lessons, forgot some of them, couldn’t pay for a few others, and moved on.
We started building Space Station/Freedom/ISS, spent a lot of time and money circling the planet, and did a lot of talking about where to go next. Then the loss of Columbia (also political engineering) along with the mounting fiscal reality of fighting two wars and the escalating costs of social programs competing for the same (meager) space dollars demanded that the status quo could no longer go on. HSF was no longer a national priority, it became a national preference. The Shuttle, which had long been deemed a national asset, suddenly became the national boat anchor. The Bush 43 VSE was instituted.
Personally, I liked the Craig Steidle VSE approach ( The soon Verboten “Spiral Development” ), and provided with facts, data, and a logical argument Steidle was capable of changing his mind. Yes, Bush terminated the Shuttle program, but he also started the program(s) to replace it ( Including COTS ). The idea was to minimize the gap between old and new flight capability, re-purpose and re-focus the work force, transition the relevant parts of the industrial base to the new programs, and create new industrial capability to fill gaps as needed.
And of course, we all know that change is hard. But we also know that unless you change something, nothing ever changes.
Then blessed with Mike Griffin, who with his magic engineering pixie dust copiously applied to all NASA field centers, turned the government contract overseers and adminstrators into government Rocket Scientists and System Architecture Experts overnight, while simultaneously branding the industry IP and Industrial base as money grubbing pariahs and jettisoned them with prejudice from any meaningful participation in the up front parts of DDT&E for ANY new system concepts. Provided with facts, data and a logical argument, Griffin was incapable of changing his mind, and the messenger most often suffered the consequences. The messengers finally got the memo: resistance is not only futile, its a career terminator.
We finished building ISS, now trying to figure out how to best use it. Retired the Shuttle with no replacement within range of the headlights (maybe Dragon?), now standing by the curb with no national HSF capability and soon to lose the US industrial base to create a new one or sustain the ELV side of the launch business.
Bolden is and has been in an impossible position and a classic no-win situation. I worked briefly with the man during his astronaut days, I think what we see now is just some sort of Charlie Bolden avatar.
So all that said, I agree with you Brian. The prime directive of any government bureaucracy is to propagate and protect its existence, its primary mission becomes of minimal (if any) importance. Where do you think the mandate for “10 Healthy Field Centers” (who often duplicate the same work as competitors instead of working in sync as partners) comes from? I think “10 Independent Field Centers” is a more adequate descriptor. NASA is the poster child for this syndrome and has been for quite some time.
I am by no means a commercial space “rock thrower”. I absolutely applaud and admire SpaceX for what they have accomplished. They don’t just talk about it, they go and DO IT! I just hope they can keep doing it and resist being morphed by the government into another money grubbing pariah look-alike. If the government was capable of instituting even a close derivative of the SpaceX model, we could accomplish so much more with the same amount of money and still keep the right mix of productive, dedicated, talented people gainfully employed.
Belay the censor comment if you saw it. Time lag error.
Dan Goldin did not become NASA Administrator until 1992. The big change came about in 1985 when a bunch of NASA Apollo era ops people started retiring from civil service and were looking for new work so they could double dip. They concocted the idea of STSOC- Shuttle Operations Contract – which resulted in the formation of the USA company and this was going to reduce costs of Shuttle operations by turning it over to the ‘private sector’ (a cost plus contract). Much against the wishes of the engineering and technical organizations, they disbanded the teams of NASA subsystem managers instead making them contract task order managers. Interestingly, when it came time for the Mission Operations Directorate organization to disband their teams of flight controllers, MOD refused, which meant you know had both NASA and contractors working to do the same operations job. So they handily eliminated the engineering groups responsible for system management but needlessly doubled the size of the operations organizations and made more difficult the communications processes since you now had double the number of organizations and people involved in ops. The program never got any less expensive. Challenger occurred about 6 months before the start of the new organizational process, and Challenger was credited for allowing the STSOC people to get their act in order to be able to take over many of the NASA functions. The technical organizations serving as task order managers only lasted for awhile, since over the next 10 years in an effort to ‘control costs’, the programs (Shuttle and ISS) now decided to terminate many of their internal to NASA ITAs (Internal Task Agreements) so you wound up with the technical people having little or nothing to manage. You also had the ops people taking over more of the technical functions – managing JSC facilities, taking over some hardware and software production. Even many of the ops people were mystified over what was going on. They managed to disembowel the technical engineering organizations while promoting the ops people and centralizing all authority within the programs. It was also at this point that the budget started flowing to the programs instead of to the centers. When Shuttle was terminated, so were many of the technical support functions related to launch, return and logistics. Because there was so little knowledge of development within ISS, much of the ISS hardware was turned over to the international partners to develop and provide. Shortsightedness and the desire to line the pockets of a few NASA/former NASA people successfully destroyed the human space flight effort that had been NASA in prior decades.
Amen, brother, amen.
Interesting to read this, I wonder how many others will ‘convert.’ Much what I hear from people in Titusville are comments like “Obama killed Shuttle” though they should know better than that. But even many that follow space program get confused who initiated CCDev (O’Keefe/Griffen/Bolden… 50 years from now memories of political decisions made in early 21st century will be very confusing). However, downside of “dramatic cost savings of commercial spaceflight” is less people working at The Cape.
Less people working at the cape is not a downside if they’re not needed. Space exploration and exploitation should not be about jobs.
So many people were needed at the Cape to keep Shuttle flying that it was regularly referred to as NASA’s standing army. This was one of the major downsides of Shuttle, and one of the reasons it proved to be unaffordable.
I remember when the commercial space effort was first considered, one of the frequently cited advantages was that it would NOT require a “standing army,” and for that reason alone would be far more affordable.
Of course, that was then. Interesting how times change.
But, could the Shuttle stand-down have been handled less disruptively? Sure, although the effort would have had to begin almost ten years ago. With some forethought, we could have transitioned many or most of the now unemployed Cape refugees to productive occupations. However, I have yet to find more than a handful of politicians who think beyond the next election or fund-raiser.
“So many people were needed at the Cape to keep Shuttle flying that it was regularly referred to as NASA’s standing army. This was one of the major downsides of Shuttle, and one of the reasons it proved to be unaffordable.”
Only 20% of the Shuttle budget was spent at KSC, the other 80% went to JSC and MSFC. That’s where the real costs were for Shuttle.
You may be right (I have no immediate way of checking), but you completely missed my point.
Much what I hear from people in Titusville are comments like “Obama
killed Shuttle” though they should know better than that. But even many
that follow space program get confused who initiated CCDev
(O’Keefe/Griffen/Bolden..
It is always this way. Remember when many said Nixon put us on the moon (actually Kennedy/Johnson).
Taking the blame/credit is just as much a gambit in DC as the failure/success, waste/frugal accusations. Much is in the eye of the manipulator.
However, downside of “dramatic cost savings of commercial spaceflight” is less people working at The Cape.
Only if it is used that way.
If it is used to increase flight rate, more people work at the cape.
That is the “high stakes poker” I’ve referred to.
I recall the web stream of one of the early Falcon 1 (failed) launches from Kwajelein that aborted before achieving orbit. Many dismissed it as a failure and denigrated the entire SpaceX effort as a toy rocket.
Five years later, SpaceX has definitely joined the “Big Leagues”. Yes, they are doing things that governments have done before. And yes, they have received government money (in return for services…an important distinction).
But — to my mind — what sets this commerical space program apart from the past is who is ultimately in control. Congress cannot cancel Falcon/Dragon. They can (foolishly) refuse to buy services from SpaceX, which would be a major setback. But the hope is that SpaceX continues to deliver, finds new customers, and firmly establishes a spacebound infrastructure that is not beholden to the whims of small-minded politicians.
Then, we would expect, others will follow.
“Congress cannot cancel Falcon/Dragon.”
For me, this is the key. Elon Musk has built a company, with lots of help from current and former NASA engineers, that stands on its own. If NASA continues to support it, NASA will get a human-rated Dragon more quickly. If they decide to abandon it in favor of the fruit-of-the-month project from Congress (SLS, et al.), then SpaceX will still build the human-rated Dragon and sell the seats to someone else.
Frankly, I see that as not highly likely, perhaps a 30% chance. Even if Congress does cut off SpaceX, they’ll come back with their tails between their legs when Musk & Co. are heading beyond LEO without them and their launch cost is dramatically undercutting ULA, Arianespace, and China.
If SpaceX successfully scales up their operations to support increasing demand for their services, they will survive and thrive. If they succeed in their plans for rapid re-usability, then humanity becomes a thriving multi-planet species and we all will thrive.
I’m betting on Mr. Musk.
Correct. Loss of control. But also … loss of face. Deadly in politics.
Do the numbers and they point the direction. Conclusively.
Ask anyone with a space website – what space topic gets the most hits right now? SLS? Liberty(snicker)?
SpaceX. Dragon.
That wasn’t always so however. There was a reason for the pro-SLS bias / blatant propaganda and censorship on “certain” websites. But it’s interesting to see how some of the most ardent SLS shills are now cheering on Falcon and Dragon. Without admitting they changed their tune of course. Also interesting to note that they are now pointing out possibilities to others that they previously denied were possible or that they poo-pooed. Again without admitting they changed their tune of course.
The winds of change are blowing…
The winds of change are blowing…
I wish.
We are at a crossroads. Hecate at mid point. Beware.
A government space program does not have the same agenda as private space programs. And it shouldn’t. NASA’s priority is to pioneer and explore the solar system so that privateers can later exploit what NASA has discovered for profit.
We don’t need private companies to replace NASA in utilizing tax payer dollars. We need private space companies to grow the economy by investing in private ventures with private dollars. And one of NASA’s priorities should be to help private companies to do that!
Marcel F. Williams
You’re disingenous. Didn’t seem to complain with govt HLV eating huge amounts of budget.
Now when someone does a better deal, you suddenly want to pull out the carpet from under them.
All this is, is trying to take bat & ball (and budget) and walk off the field. So much for the exploration of space.
This is another stupid “responsibility” fiction that hides your irresponsibility. It is irresponsible to kill an infant in a cradle.
DTARS is right, one must manage the transition (note how arsenal space managed the post Shuttle transition … like a mobster claiming they were the only game in town, and they intentionally ran out the clock and blamed everyone else but themselves).
So, because COTS went well, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. That means greatly increasing commercial space budget (to $1.6B), and telling arsenal space and NASA that they can have a piece of that if they can play the same game or better.
Leave ISS alone. Turn SLS/Orion budgets into a BEO “future” budget that phases out international LEO stations in favor of eventual “smaller” per country stations, phases in a differently structured international partnership EML 1/2 station, and does a economic development awards program for combined govt/commercial attempts to broaden the economic base for space exploration, where industry/tourism/mining/energy is the follow-on permanent “self financed 100%” goal.
That’s a real agenda not shilling for the weasels that got us into this mess in the first place.
Had this thought the other day Marcel about suckeling of ISS to start your Bigelow Leo space economy.
Months back there was a NASA watch thread on Bigelow and because human space flight was taking so long Bigelow had slowed up their production plans so the comments said. Before that I had read that Bigelow was talking to NASA about adding a Bigelow rubber room to ISS. Well seems to me that ISS. Still has a flow of humans flying to it, and if NASA/congress were really interested in moving space structures/stations along, wouldn’t they have written Bigelow a contract already? You know just to support Space development and all that?????
Spacex now signed their first falcon heavy customer. Seems they have new plans and developments coming out about one every month or two.
Shouldn’t NASA get on the stick and start creating missions/programs that help?????!!!!
Sign Bigelow!!!! We want to add to ISS for greater volume and capability maybe that tourist center to get some future tourist money up there.
@ no one consequence
NASA’s priority is supposed to be beyond LEO missions, primarily establishing a Moon base, IMO. So they need a beyond LEO HLV in order to achieve their mission.
I was never a fan of the ISS, even when Ronald Reagan conceived it because I believed that it would trap NASA at LEO. And that’s exactly what happened!
The SLS/MPCV program actually cost less than the cancelled Constellation program which was being funded at $3.4 billion a year when Obama came into office and was supposed to increase to over $5 billion a year once the Space Shuttles were retired. So the SLS/MPCV beyond LEO program at $3 billion a year is saving NASA more than $2 billion annually relative to what the Constellation beyond LEO program was supposed to cost at this time period.
Marcel F. Williams
NASA’s priority is supposed to be beyond LEO missions, primarily
establishing a Moon base, IMO. So they need a beyond LEO HLV in order to
achieve their mission.
Neither statement is true (unless because you added the word IMO), and the second does not follow from the first. And I think you know it doesn’t. If you don’t, you’re a bigger fool than I thought.
The HLV is an obstacle to establishing a moon base, just as it is an obstacle on the quickest (but fortunately not only) road to cheap lift.
DTARS
@ DTARS
I think one of the first uses of the SLS should be for NASA to purchase and deploy one or two (never put all of your eggs in just one basket– especially humans) of Bigelow’s simple and cheap BA-2100 Olympus space stations as a way station for beyond LEO missions, placed in an orbit more appropriate for launches from North America.
I’d even use the Delta IV heavy or the Liberty rocket to deploy one or two of the smaller BA-330 for NASA even before the SLS was ready.
This would put some money into the pockets of Bigelow Aerospace while giving Bigelow space stations the NASA stamp of approval which should enhance Bigelows efforts to market their space stations to other governments and private spaceflight companies.
The money for NASA to do this would come from ending the ISS program or by turning the ISS program completely over to our partners by 2016 if they still want to run that extremely expensive machine– then they can even invite fascist China:-)
Marcel F. Williams
NASA already spends most of its money on contractors. No one here is suggesting Congress should directly buy hardware or services from SpaceX, it would go through the DoD or NASA.
What we’re asking for is that that spending isn’t limited to the usual suspects (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, USA, ATK, PWR) but that there should be free and full competition.
What you are advocating is a government-sanctioned private cartel. It’s disgusting.
“It’s part of a series of tough decisions he has made to stand by NASA and especially Florida’s Space Coast. The president is investing in work-force training to connect Space Coast workers with emerging clean-energy businesses.”
Really. The clean energy industry has done so well so far I’m sure they’ll all be gainfully employed and happily thriving again toot-sweet.
At least when I worked there, space wasn’t just a job, it was a calling that a lot of people I know dedicated their lives and careers to.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for commercializing space and access to space, its the next logical step if we’re to become a persistent space faring nation with an economically viable reason to go there.
Yes, Bush terminated Shuttle, but he also started the programs to replace it (Including COTS!). It was this Administration that killed the replacement programs, dumped a priceless workforce into the street, and left us with no HSF capability for some time to come. All of the industrial infrastructure that supported not just HSF, but also ELV capability has been in free-fall for over 3 years now with the bottom looming up fast.
The sad part is, the reasons “old space” has now been demonized into extinction were all MANDATED by the Government. We all knew there were better ways to do business, we were forbidden to even talk about it.
This didn’t have to be a zero sum game.
Sometimes we have to forget our knee-jerk political reactions and look at the facts. The current Administration is more committed to a sustainable program of space exploration and exploitation than any since Johnson. We were spending billions on space as a jobs program; it could not continue. The options were to spend the about same but more intelligently (read: fewer jobs), or spend more intelligently but keep the same number of jobs (read: spend a lot more). With SLS we have the Senate trying to spend more, but less intelligently. Forget which one the Democrat proposed and ask yourself honestly which of those three you would prefer. Go ahead, elect a bunch of Tea Baggers, but don’t come crying here when they kill NASA entirely.
Rich, I think you missed my point. I have always said that we could spend the same amount of money and actually go somewhere and do some wonderful things with it if it were spent wisely – as in without the 90% bureaucracy tax that comes from every dollar spent on space.
From the beginning, space has almost always been done by “commercial” entities. They might be BIG entities, but commercial none-the-less. It has always been the government that has mandated the most costly and non-essential requirements imaginable (most having to do with bean-counting, not technology), incentivised them to meet those requirements and then body slam them for compliance with those requirements being too expensive. In other words, if you’re going to force me to do something stupid, why would you expect to get it for free? I wouldn’t sign up for that, would you? Pretty soon “stupid” became the norm, not the exception. Want to get tossed out of a competition? Just try proposing the essentials to get the job done without the “stupid” clauses. For some bureaucrat, those are his/her empire, not to be disrespected or minimalized.
Along with that, anyone ever heard of requirements creep? How about requirements that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on? That plus the aversion to making any decision that involves the slightest modicum of risk is what happens when you have a committee of hundreds, each armed with a vote, who all must be placated in some fashion in order to render the most inconsequential but politically necessary decision? Every one of those ridiculous, non-sequitor “action items” that have to be answered to make the bureaucrat happy all cost money. Lots of money. No wonder it takes 5 years to figure out how to make make a brown bag lunch. (it took 2 years of meetings, studies and committees to reach consensus that the bag would be brown! Still working on the actual bag material.)
No wonder that even with ALL of the available COTS/MOTS, materials, computing, and software technology we have today, “we” can’t figure out how to even go back to the moon for less than 5X our national GDP in less than 15 years. This is why even though we have the technology, the hardware, more than enough money (properly spent), and the know how (well -maybe not any more) to do the job, a guy like Elon can come along with money and without all those non-value added constraints and make the “old guard” look like thirteen monkeys locked in a phone booth working a calculus problem. Yes, Elon got tax payer COTS money, but I can pretty much guarantee that the 90% bureaucrat tax didn’t come with it as a condition of getting it.
“We” have been our own worst enemy and have brought this destruction on ourselves. I can’t count how many times have I watched 20 guys watching two guys on a tag-line during a lift operation because layer upon layer of rules and union agreements say it must be done that way and wondered “how long can this go on”? I can tell you this from experience as well; the “commercial” guys sure don’t operate that way. Now the question is – can it be fixed? Is it too late? Do we care enough to even want to fix it?
In spite of your “Tea Bagger” insult, both parties (BTW: TEA Party isn’t a party – its a philosophy about how gov’t should be conducted (hint: per the Constitution)) have done more than their fair share to mangle our space policy and capability beyond recognition. Using space as a political chit has almost destroyed it.
To answer your insult – it just so happens I like my liberty and freedom and despise some faceless, incompetent, pandering government bureaucrat sticking their nose into every aspect of my life and confiscating my hard earned dollars to give to someone else to use for toilet paper. I don’t mind a reasonable contribution to support the Constitutional functions of the nation as long as its not wasted or used to pander votes – for either side. I don’t mind if people come to this country legally and become law abiding, productive citizens. I judge people by the content of their character and their capability; not their gender, sexual preference, religious beliefs, or the color of their skin. I don’t think they should move to the front of the line or get any other rights and freedoms than I have for any of those reasons either. Created EQUAL should mean something. If that makes me a “Tea Bagger”, then so be it.
I’ve always maintained that any “failures” of the US Space Program is not due to a lack of technical expertise or dedication on the part of the smart, dedicated people at NASA.
But if you are an organization with 536 bickering CEOs*, you are doomed to fail …. and waste a lot of money.
* Congressmen, Senators and a New POTUS every 4-8 years.
It’s pretty pathetic to hear someone with the handle “JohnGaltTexas”, presumably living in the environs of Houston, whining about government workers having their job outsourced.
If only you knew what you were talking about…
This didn’t have to be a zero sum game.
Yes it had to be this way. The choice forced by the polarized political culture in action today, where everything is “zero sum”.
This is a direct “consequence” of the right’s purity movement that “takes no prisoners”. Started in the 80’s.
Hoist on own petard. So much for “principles”.
Seems that this could be the best out come possible. If they had succeeded in some easy transition. Things maybe moving much slower to get to cheaper space flight.
Seems that this could be the best out come possible.
Things have the potential to improve.
But … there must be “follow through”. Or it can be for naught.
Look … I’m “old space” … about as old as can get in fact. These guys … “we” … are devout cynics who have seen “good” go unappreciated … or worse.
So we’re waiting for what follows. And its reception will determine the next battle.
If they had succeeded in some easy transition.
Other shoe hasn’t dropped. No transition yet.
Things maybe moving much slower to get to cheaper space flight.
Doesn’t work that way. You need to get to “increased flight rate” before the Marcel’s of the world crash the ISS’s that allow you to work off the past economics meant to feed the arsenal space piggies, so that then accomodation to higher flight rate occurs!
By that time, then the Marcel’s have cut the budget, then it becomes a game of “Survivor” for launch services, where flight rate is maintained (because of the need to get research product from ISS and others possibly Bigalow) but cost of flight shrinks.
Then this change hits the arsenal system entirely – they reorganize, including NASA, to work 60/40 (or 70/30) Firm Fixed Price to Cost Plus. They come back and its not “old space” “new space” but just “space”.
Then you have a rational pricing structure.
My issue with arsenal space is that it’s been pricing itself out of the market, by shrinking down flight rate and capability to increase cost per flight so they optimize monetary return and shift all the risk to the tax payer, where they have no incentive to improve.
They do this with an insane price structure, and simply lobby Congress. No different than insisting on a “back-up” engine for Joint Strike Fighter irrespective of need – ask the Speaker of the House about that one!
REALITY TIME
First, the commercial effort was begun under Griffin. SpaceX and Orbital were selected by Griffin.
Second, this administration canceled Constellation and replaced it with two things:
a) we’ll use commercial everywhere, and
b) we’ll blow-off the obtainable and useful goal of a presence on the Moon and replace that with a one-shot deal to an asteroid – sometime, somehow … whenever, anyhow, …
Third, since NASA is a case study in the Peter Principle and has little in the way of in-house engineering talent, commercial seems to be the only realistic way to proceed.
Finally, SpaceX’s most important contribution: kicking Boeing, Lock-Mart, etc. in their complacent asses.
jski,
I hope you feel better getting that frustration off your chest. It’s amazing how much better blowing off a little steam can make us feel. Unfortunately, I think your Reality Time is a little bit oversimplified. I really wish it was that simple. Hang in there; don’t lose the faith. I think we’re started on a long-overdue upswing.
Steve
The Obama Administration and Mass Media are now laying claim to the success of Falcon/Dragon when, in truth, the credit is due to the Bush Administration. The groundwork for privatization was started back then and not with Obama. People need to see this as a political ploy for an administration to lay claim to something they aren’t responsible for.
To be fair to the Obama Administration, they (1) seriously committed to COTS when they cancelled Constellation (a leap of faith for which they took a lot of heat) and (2) had to fight hard for continued commercial funding (which is still a fraction of what SLS/Orion is getting). Congress kept redirecting funding to their states/districts.
On the other hand, I don’t think anyone is going to stand up and say the Obama Administration is a champion of HSF. He was up front about reducing NASA funding to direct it to social programs (education, I believe) when he was a candidate.
On the third hand, neither Bush nor any of the Congresses during the Bush era funded Constellation to the level originally projected when it was first announced, and Bush did not ask or fight for the funds either.
In short, it is hard to find any serious champion (other than for Pork) for human spaceflight, Bush or Obama or Romney, Congress or the White House, Republicans or Democrats.
COTS was supposed to fail, that was why Kistler was chosen. SpaceX only got into it on lawsuit.
I’ve heard the one thing in space that the Bush White House did right was to instruct Griffin that he couldn’t touch COTS. I don’t know if that’s true.
Griffin said he had little contact with the program.
SpaceX was a winner in the first COTS round along with RpK. OSC got an award when RpK failed to come up with required financing.
The lawsuit was not over COTS. SpaceX protested a sole-source award NASA made to
Kistler Aerospace Corp. for flight data from the company’s reusable K-1
rocket. NASA rescinded Kistler’s $234 million award after the GAO
informed the space agency it would likely rule in favor of SpaceX.
Trust me it greatly influenced the outcome of what COTS become …
This made all the difference in the world.
I think one winner may be “clean-sheet design”.
Remember the “Safe, simple, soon” motto? There was religion that the fastest, most economical way to the next system was by leveraging legacy systems. Whether it was a side-mounted HLV, Ares I & Ares V, Ares IV, DIRECT, etc., they were all shuttle-derived systems.
Falcon 9 is a clean-sheet design. It has now put several payloads into orbit, took a lot less to design & build, and has low marginal costs.
Yes. SDLV has always been a canard. To take longer and more $’s.
A SDLV could have flown before shuttle ended if it hadn’t been run as the traditional pork barrel public works project with 10 thousand people involved. There were just too many internal detractors with their own agendas for it to ever see the light of engine ignition.
Not to detract from SpaceX’s significant accomplishment, but several payloads? No, just two Dragon capsules. Low marginal costs with 10 engines? I’d have to think about that one a bit more.
I’ve read your comments carefully. They are in no way insincere, incorrect, or incendiary. It pains me to read them because they contain all the elements of where I came from and what I had to cope with.
You need to know that when I speak sharply it is not because I’m ignoring all that. Or that I’m walking out on the past I’m still very much attached to. Back to critical now.
SDLV – coulda, woulda, shoulda. “No one” listened to Craig Steidle. Saying what we all knew.
“pork barrel public works”- and … you think “son of Shuttle” … protected by primes for decades … would be any different? With budgets already tightening over those decades, and more vicious between them? C’mon.
“too many internal detractors” – no, the issue was NO ONE LISTENED to CRITICAL FEEDBACK to get the BASE PROGRAM **ESTABLISHED** before anything else. NO DISCIPLINE to NEED!
So what do we see with SpaceX? Discipline to need! And when they slip & recover, “old space” snarks and doesn’t get to THEIR game!
“several payloads?” – yeah, I know. This is the weakest part of the story. But everybody brags a bit when the new LV comes on.
“Low marginal costs with 10 engines?” – the 10 engines was how they did it as short as they did. Developmental costs/schedule/dependencies/program risk otherwise kill you.
Because engines are inhouse, knee in curve for volume to matter is different than with PWR. Program risk reduction becomes key factor. Testing to do so lowered in volume with flight sets.
NASA would never dare any of that strategy … yet FASTRAC was perfect for this. Business strategy aligned with ability to execute on specific scale.
Open question is can this be maintained as flight rate scales. If not, then they must adapt. Again, NASA would never do this … because they know they can’t adapt that fast … this is the key … they need to be able to adapt faster, and force providers/vendors to adapt even faster than they work.
Leaving a lot out here but answering your reasonable issues.
“they need to be able to adapt faster, and force providers/vendors to adapt even faster than they work.“
As an example of this, recall the events of Apollo CSM and LM. Grumman and the CSM contractors were under the gun while NASA snapped the whip. And that was the only way that the “Moon by the end of the decade” happened )espacially after the Apollo 1 fire). But it’s never happened since, and money is not the only reason.
Steve
If someone wants to take a look at what the Bush space policy when it was announced and how NASA was proposing to implement it back then – here’s the link:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/555…
A Renewed Spirit of Discovery:
The President’s Vision
for U.S. Space Exploration
Goal and Objectives
The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program. In support of this goal, the United States will:
• Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and beyond;
• Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations;
• Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and to support decisions about the destinations for human exploration; and
• Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests.
Bringing the Vision to Reality
The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will be responsible for the plans, programs, and activities required to implement this vision, in coordination with other agencies, as deemed appropriate. The Administrator will plan and implement an integrated, long-term robotic and human exploration program structured with measurable milestones and executed on the basis of available resources, accumulated experience, and technology readiness.
To implement this vision, the Administrator will conduct the following activities and take other actions as required:
A. Exploration Activities in Low Earth Orbit
Space Shuttle
• Return the Space Shuttle to flight as soon as practical, based on the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board;
• Focus use of the Space Shuttle to complete assembly of the International Space Station; and
• Retire the Space Shuttle as soon as assembly of the International Space Station is completed, planned for the end of this decade;
International Space Station
• Complete assembly of the International Space Station, including the U.S. components that support U.S. space exploration goals and those provided by foreign partners, planned for the end of this decade;
• Focus U.S. research and use of the International Space Station on supporting space exploration goals, with emphasis on understanding how the space environment affects astronaut health and capabilities and developing countermeasures; and
• Conduct International Space Station activities in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations contained in the agreements between the United States and other partners in the International Space Station.
B. Space Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit
The Moon
• Undertake lunar exploration activities to enable sustained human and robotic exploration of Mars and more distant destinations in the solar system;
• Starting no later than 2008, initiate a series of robotic missions to the Moon to prepare for and support future human exploration activities;
• Conduct the first extended human expedition to the lunar surface as early as 2015, but no later than the year 2020; and
• Use lunar exploration activities to further science, and to develop and test new approaches, technologies, and systems, including use of lunar and other space resources, to support sustained human space exploration to Mars and other destinations.
Mars and Other Destinations
• Conduct robotic exploration of Mars to search for evidence of life, to understand the history of the solar system, and to prepare for future human exploration;
• Conduct robotic exploration across the solar system for scientific purposes and to support human exploration. In particular, explore Jupiter’s moons, asteroids and other bodies to search for evidence of life, to understand the history of the solar system, and to search for resources;
• Conduct advanced telescope searches for Earth-like planets and habitable environments around other stars;
• Develop and demonstrate power generation, propulsion, life support, and other key capabilities required to support more distant, more capable, and/or longer duration human and robotic exploration of Mars and other destinations; and
• Conduct human expeditions to Mars after acquiring adequate knowledge about the planet using robotic missions and after successfully demonstrating sustained human exploration missions to the Moon.
C. Space Transportation Capabilities Supporting Exploration
• Develop a new crew exploration vehicle to provide crew transportation for missions beyond low Earth orbit;
« Conduct the initial test flight before the end of this decade in order to provide an operational capability to support human exploration missions no later than 2014;
• Separate to the maximum practical extent crew from cargo transportation to the International Space Station and for launching exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit;
« Acquire cargo transportation as soon as practical and affordable to support missions to and from the International Space Station; and
« Acquire crew transportation to and from the International Space Station, as required, after the Space Shuttle is retired from service.
D. International and Commercial Participation
• Pursue opportunities for international participation to support U.S. space exploration goals; and
• Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other services supporting the
International Space Station and exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit.
PR E S I D E N T G E O R G E W. B U S H
JANUARY 14, 2004
Of note – commercial cargo to ISS was proposed in 2004. The plan envisioned meeting ISS obligations to intl parters and focusing on long duration human impacts through 2015, then over and out, so crew vehicles for ISS were not addressed. The CEV was a signature element, but did not call out for much vehicle development – perhaps a heavy lift vehicle eventually if it turned out to be needed.
The Google can be your friend if you will let it…. 2 0 0
“It was this Administration that killed the replacement programs, dumped a priceless workforce into the street, and left us with no HSF capability for some time to come.”
He saved the government tens of billions of dollars that it was going to pour down a bottomless rat hole called Constellation (never would’ve flown, ever). “Priceless workforce”? That’s a laugh. A bunch of operations people, anyone can operate a mature system, even as complex as Shuttle. The priceless workforce was systematically dismantled in the ’80’s, the workforce that could design and build things from a clean sheet of paper. That is what NASA currently does not have. It’s like comparing A&P mechanics and baggage handlers to airplane design engineers. The former takes a high school diploma, are a dime a dozen, and number in the millions. The latter takes a college degree in engineering, are very hard to come by, and there’s only a handful in this country.
Really. Obviously you have never worked in any sort of launch operations environment.
Launch operations people, especially at JSC are more notable for their personality than technical skills. Columbia mismanagement is just tip of the iceberg.
Meanwhile SpaceX operations people are thinking all the way up to launch. Do you remember the nozzle crack on Falcon 9 Cots-1? They flew in a fabrication guy to cut the crack out ON THE PAD.
JSC has been dead weight for at least a decade. A lot of smart good people are there, but far more are worthless fools.
You folks kill me with your painting of all ops people as evil and worthless. shame on you sir
Personally I don’t think the individuals who worked ops are evil or worthless. I do, however, believe that operations grew too large in terms of numbers of people, their political power within the overall HSF organization, and that they destroyed much of the remainder of the HSF organization in order to support their own interests.
All we heard the last many years was “we are an Ops organization”. They forgot that before they were solely an ops organization, they were the Manned Spacecraft Center, regardless of their location at Langley or Houston, and their purpose was designing and developing spacecraft for people. Operations was a relatively small subset that was supposed to operate the products after their development.
What many of us saw pretty clearly, though from the outside since they had filled their ranks with ops people in the management positions and wouldn’t let the rest of us in, was when Constellation had an opportunity to make something of itself, they failed because the management, mainly former flight directors and astronauts, could not figure out how to organize, how to develop their requirements, how to move forward with system design and hardware development. We still see that today with tens of billions of dollars spent and nothing close to flying. It is pointed out dramatically in the difference between Space-X’s accomplishments this past week and NASA’s. SImilar time period since 2004; NASA has spent 50 times more. Space-X is flying.
Similar thing in ISS today and over the last 20 years. Instead of maintaining and developing the technical workforce by developing hardware and managing systems and technical integration processes, ISS managers seemed to do their best to give away hardware and systems to our international partners and turned off most science and experimentation. The current AA, himself out of the ops organization, said they were too focused on assembly ops. Now we have an ISS with a lot of empty space where the US hardware was supposed to be and little science.
Shuttle, same kind of thing. There was every reason to enhance and further develop the Shuttle design and hardware. But instead the focus was on flying the next mission. Having worked in Shuttle in several positions, I know Shuttle could have been operated and managed with much smaller numbers of people and much smaller budgets, or alternatively that the same amount of money could have gone into development and refinement. Even after the accidents that did not happen. It never got less expensive; the money was going largely into ops, and today we have essentially nothing to show for it; no Shuttle; no refined Shuttle; no follow on to Shuttle.
I would not call them evil or worthless, but they have been misguided and have wrecked a lot of the programs they have taken charge of. What is needed now and in the future is a far more even-handed management that incorporates far more of the process and people of spaceflight.
We need operations. Look at it like aeronautics. You have airlines, the military, and general aviation. They are the operators. But you also have the manufacturers that design and build the vehicles, and you used to have a NACA/NASA that led the DDT&E especially of new systems. It wasn’t that NACA/NASA had no role in ops; they contributed a pilot or two to a research project.But if the entire organization is focused on operating the system, then who is developing the next generation of technology? .
“Priceless workforce”? That’s a laugh. A bunch of operations people, anyone can operate a mature system, even as complex as Shuttle”
The Space Shuttle was an experimental vehicle all the way through to its very last flight. The people who flew it had more than extraordinary skill, they also had something priceless called dedication.
COTS was started by O’Keefe, not Griffin. Get it straight people. Griffin has been anticipating COTS failure for years.
That doesn’t sound like someone that should be touted for COTS successes.
I’ll take it further than that, NASA would be far far better off if Griffin never has position in the agency. The man was and still is a fool. It was impossible to have a technical discussion that contrasted with any of his views.
Have
The decision to help develop private commercial manned spaceflight will be a huge step forward– especially if NASA helps to promote none tax payer dependent markets for the emerging manned spaceflight companies like establishing a national and international space lotto system so that average people can have a chance to travel to orbit– not just professional astronauts and the wealthy elite.
But America’s decision not to set up a manned outpost at one, or both, of the lunar poles to test the long term ability of humans to adapt to low gravity environments and to gain access to the Moon’s vast water ice and hydrocarbon resources may well be viewed as one of the biggest mistakes in American history– which could hurt both NASA’s future and the development of America’s emerging private manned spaceflight companies.
Marcel F. Williams
No
CAPT Kelly…
Sir, you may be right. History will judge the wisdom of the President’s decision. Unlike many so-called pundits, especially those who have never touched, worked anywhere near or on a space vehicle, I will not be so quick to annoint SpaceX the savior of our dreams. I give credit for running a lean organization, something many of us who worked Shuttle wanted to do if not for the unfounded fears of our management and the ignorance and failures of our national leadership, But I will not give credit for doing something technically done many times before.
It is the tone of your comments that disturb me, and the outright political smack that they have. And, it seemed that you have no mention for those in the city of Houston who trained you, insured your well being, and took down every detail of your missions so the next mission would learn.
Shame on you Sir. This program was bigger than you and the state of Florida. And as I like to remind all the so-called experts on this page, as they bash and belittle the decisions made, remember that those who did the real work, continue to suffer because of the idiocy in the management/command structure.
And, I’m sorry, nothing was prettier than the sight of a Shuttle, operating in space or on its return. Why we couldn’t just incorporate lessons learned and build a better vehicle is beyond me. Detroit does it all the time. My TVs have gotten progressive better and cheaper.
We got cheaper. Kudos to SpaceX. But we didn’t get better….And I wager that we won’t for at least 50 years…
We got cheaper. Kudos to SpaceX. But we didn’t get better..
No sir, we got better.
This is a reusable capsule, with a reusable service module, and an extensible architecture to incrementally phase in more reuse and more capability that is safer as well.
Apollo was considered to unsafe to continue and to difficult to modernize … that’s why we didn’t keep up the craft as BEO alongside a LEO Shuttle.
Shuttle got, due to “cheaper”, solids you couldn’t abort, RTLS abort too dangerous to fly, a fragile heat shield, no crew escape, and dozens of issues that rendered it compromised in its mission to lower cost to access space. And many of these were permanent because you couldn’t dare mess with it to incrementally improve it because you may risk too much.
The SpaceX success today is not about a vehicle. It’s about digging ourselves out of a rathole we were stuck in back in the Nixon timeframe with the Taos Shuttle compromises, which were wrong.
So we have a provable “plan B”.
Now the idiots in arsenal space need to get a better “plan A” to get on there game instead of being a bunch of weasels/crybabys.
A thought I had the other day when comparing good engineering practice with animals that evolve. Seems to me that Spacex will always be evolving their rockets. Seems to me that was the major problem. NASA was stopped from evolving their systems.
Anyway I don’t see that happening with Spacex and new space, I think the Jeannie is out of the bottle and THEY will not be able to stop it as hard as THEY might try.
NASA was stopped from evolving their systems.
Yes. By Congress and arsenal space. They want to fly infrequently the same hardware for more money, with Uncle Sam as the patsy. Lets end that game.
Why SpaceX must evolve is that otherwise they will lose the business that arsenal space just priced themselves out of.
All this stupid wailing about not being a real commercial marketplace was BS used to hide the fact that over use of “cost plus” in arms systems (and space) that Congress has long used, isn’t commercial either.
Lets see if Congress reacts appropriately to this.
Disagree!!!!! Old space, new space, provider space lol Mr. C you are cutting edge space if anyone here is lolol
Out!!!!!!
I think the people who felt they were considered a being evil and worthless were all of the people who had built up experience and careers over decades of service but who could not get into leadership or even their own existing jobs in the organization because the ops managers, former flight directors and astronauts, made sure their compatriots and cronies got the positions, even if they had no related experience. That was why the program began to fail.
No. Part of the reason we had to have a success far away from the usual suspects, is to show that the system we relied on is broken.
Until then, “no one” would accept it. Just defend to the last, the same broken system, propping it up a little longer.
The only way the engineers, scientists, technicians, programmers, and line managers could get a fair deal that they deserved … was for a top down rejection. The “evil” as you put it is structural, emanates primarily from K street in DC, and has nothing to do with all those in NASA and the primes. But after a while, everyone gets slimed by it.
The original villain is Casper Weinberger, who in his infinite wisdom decided to compound the problem by forcing defense prime acquisitions, at a time when technology pointed the direction for smaller and more diverse. To use the Obama phrase, he went against history – this in part was why the Soviet Union went bankrupt, and he decided to compete with an incredibly stupid policy. We were already suffering from the ills of too big with the primes, and he made the problem terminal. What you are noticing is just some of the collateral damage.
Dragon to me is the first example of a way out of the long nightmare. I’m sorry for all the burst dreams … including my own.
But a bunch of dick heads spoiled it for all of us. It doesn’t make me bitter, it makes me glad to see that someway it might get better, so that the next generation of engineers, scientists, technicians, programmers, and line managers might get a system that will use their talents better than we experienced.
Obama gets credit for switching to commercial human orbital access?
Gee, I thought it was all George bush’s fault.
Jim,
Does this mean you are now on the side of commercial space–cargo and crew!
When Obama toured Spacex plant first before harvesting constellation pork, I think he wanted the blame. To bad Robert Zubrin didn’t get to ride with Elon and Obama in the tesla on the nasa runway.
A lot of good posts presented here…some posts are a lot of pontificating. I am an average Joe taxpayer, who happens to believe that manned spaceflight is a good thing. I will keep it simple. NASA as an agency withered on the vine and died after Apollo/Skylab.