Today's Space Policy Radio Chat
Keith’s note: Lori Garver, Scott Pace, Mike Gold, and Joel Achenbach were guests on Diane Rhem Show (radio) today at 11:00 am EST
Lori Garver said that she favored cancellation of SLS and Mars 2020 rover. Scott Pace spoke enthusiastically about SpaceX launching commercial satellites and bringing that service back to America. Mike Gold tried to explain Bob Bigelow’s recent statements about private propery ownership of things on the Moon. And Joel Achenbach said he does not think we should become a multiplanet species until we have fixed all of our problems on Earth (in other words, never).
Whoa, i wish someone would listen to Lori.
Yes, 2020 Rover needs to go, SLS needs to go too, and both are political impossibilities.
Hmmm. It would be sad to see Mars 2020 canceled but we have now two rovers, two orbiters, approaching orbiter and a lander plus foreign missions at/going to Mars. Mars 2020 would be cheaper but I really like the idea of the first survey mission to Europa. JPL will be involved with the Europa mission – for them a zero sum game.
You hear in the Diane Rehm discussion the arguments that need to win the day for NASA. This is really a matter of drawing battle lines for the future of NASA. I really think that if space advocates such as you find here and scattered across Societies and Organizations, do join together, engage the public too, an Occupy Wall St or Tea Party-type movement, based on rational ideas can be made that sways NASA’s destiny in the right direction. Recent statements and legislative actions by politicians are not the solution.
Realistically, we can’t expect to ‘steal away’ all the funds now be soaked up by SLS and Orion. Human flight development must retain a percentage of those funds presently allocated. What are the “new and innovative” human spaceflight things that these NASA Centers and engineers could be redirected to do?
No for JPL ( and their prime contractor ) it’s not a zero sum game due to vested interests, and preserving capabilities. There is a lot of PhDs and careers at stake here.
If anyone tells you that 2020 rover was selected “because science”, keep a critical part of your mind working.
I agree. My comment of ‘zero sum’ was a view from 50,000 feet. Look at the details of trading 2020 for Europa and there are winners and losers as you say.
The problem is that space advocates fall roughly into two groups: cheerleaders and advocates of change. Cheerleaders “support NASA”, whatever programs have funding or are proposed; at most they will agree that NASA needs “more funding”, or that “politicians just need to get out of the way”. Advocates Of Change are all convinced that NASA is deeply broken or at least that certain current programs are wrong, and have a definite idea of what direction NASA needs to be pushed in.
It’s hard enough to get any reasonably number within each group to agree on any specific goal. But getting agreement between the two groups is impossible, they are diametrically opposed.
Then on top of that, those employees/contractors/centres/companies whose interests you seem to threaten will join in the criticism of your efforts. Then many potential advocates will be put off by the divisiveness and will be telling you “why can’t we just all agree on a direction instead of all this infighting…”
IMO, waiting until we “unite the space advocates”, or “raise public awareness”, is doomed to failure. Like Achenbach’s idiotic “fix the problems on Earth before going to [space/Mars]”, it merely condemns us to never wait forever.
There was an interesting event way back, like about 10 years, not sure who organized the conference, but a bunch of space advocay groups at the time got togeter, set aside their differences and came away with joint declaration of what they want our goals in space to be – space settlement.
This has never been a stated goal of civil space program, nor is it driving the current decision making.
That goal would be better than nothing, but it doesnt work. Why ? Because once people supporting current programs and constituencies start thinking about that goal they quickly figure out that almost nothing that we currently do in space with public funds is working towards this goal and peeling back the onion further would endanger a lot of their existing darlings.
Space settlement requires property rights. That is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Until we are willing to tackle that capital will not leave earth.
Property rights have been settled from LEO to GEO, time to bring the inner solar system into our economic sphere of activity.
I’m with you on how one can divide the types that express interest in NASA. In jest, I’d say that one group are the people that when not reading Space blogs is otherwise in front of a mirror checking out their Klingon uniform for the upcoming convention.
Reading the transcript, Achenbach did not explicitly say fix Earth before going elsewhere. I would generally agree that we cannot divert resources for solving problems on Earth to go to Mars or elsewhere. Nearly no one is saying that. Since 1900, the World’s population quadrupled. That problem and revolutionary social and technological ideas, some gone awry. Space colonization and exploration can’t directly solve these problems. Tremendous resource potential in space does exist but there is a large initial investment to overcome. Returning those resources to Earth will need to be done carefully to avoid disruptions – benefiting some while disabling livelihoods for others. SLS (Orion too, IMO) are wasting a lot of that funding. Get rid of the deadwood and we don’t have to wait forever. Europa can be explored if we stop trying to build big expensive rockets, expensive use-once capsules and also reduce costs to operate ISS.
Paul,
Once again, I think you’ve nailed it exactly. However, if we accept your premise (which I do), then there is an even more fundamental roadblock that we need to get past — every space advocate would have to be prepared to realize and admit that their current position is wrong, that they, themselves, are wrong, since they’re advocating a position or set of actions that won’t lead to progress toward our actual goal(s) (whatever they are). Even if they’re right, they’re wrong, because unanimity is one of the mandatory requirements.
And let’s be realistic, how many space advocates — typically assertive believer types — are prepared to publicly stand up and say, ‘you know, I’ve reviewed my stance and my past proposals with respect to what it now appears we really need to be doing in order to [insert our common space goal(s) here] and I was wrong. Instead, I now agree with my cohorts that we need to be [insert agreed actions to achieve agreed goal(s) here]’.
Even if we magically had the correct and best ideas and words to fill in these two “insert here” blanks, we’d still need to have all of our advocates put aside their unavoidable loss of face and commit entirely to the common goal(s), with the same details and using the same words — and be convincing, even if, deep down inside, they’re not completely 100% with the common program. And that’s a mighty tall order, something that any large group of people, no matter how professional and committed, would be hard pressed to pull off. And just to make it all even more difficult, everyone would have to appear to be absolutely sincere about it so that it didn’t look to be in any way contrived, because the competition (and there will always be competition) will be looking for weaknesses and contradictions.
I think you’ve got a solid handle on the plan, and now you need to come up with an implementation strategy.
I’m not suggesting that we need to come up with a better strategy to to unite the various advocates, but that such a strategy doesn’t exist.
All we can do is advocate what we personally believe to be the best path forward, point out the errors in the claims/beliefs of others, and yes, occasionally accept that we wuz wrong. (I mean, not me, obviously. But everyone else.)
Hence, I think various organisations should stop worrying about trying to present a united front. There ain’t no such thing. Pretending there is just ties your hands unnecessarily.
People complain that differences between advocates mean we are “so busy fighting amongst ourselves over who is right, who knows best… that we are marginalized by ourselves” and “that is the crux of why we are ignored in DC.”
But I disagree (heh), I think that vainly trying to unite behind one cause actually prevents advocacy, because the “uniters” spend so much time trying to get agreement on what to advocate, they end up not really advocating anything.
I’ll go further. Having a united strategy, even if that were possible, would undermine our advocacy. When we are united as a single voice, that one voice can be ignored, seen as a single voice (space) against the myriad voices on other issues (problems on Earth). One against a hundred.
By being diverse amongst ourselves, we may actually multiply our apparent number politically.
Or to put it yet another way: Every comment calling for unity amongst advocates is one less comment actually advocating anything.
Those that want to go through NASA.
Those that want to go around NASA.
Besides the obvious fact that the human species will always face problems on Earth (or anywhere else, for that matter), it ignores the argument that exploration and even colonization of the solar system and beyond could actually help solve at least some of those problems.
Agreed.
The assertions I have made over and over regarding SLS and Orion are supported, vindicated in Diane’s discussion. And I am not the first or last commenter here that agrees. I do agree with Garver that NASA has enough money but politics as even, Rep. Culberson admits has fouled up the allocation of those funds.
Briefly, it is clear that Culberson is poised to take Rep. Wolf’s position and just garnish the forked tongue, the two-face, and leave SLS and Orion in place to the short-term benefit of Huntsville & Houston and impairment of NASA. Let’s work to stop this from happening.
Taking Garver’s statement as a premise, NASA should do “new and innovative things that return real value”, SLS & Orion would be canceled, use of commercial crew & heavy lift would the direction now and the taxpayers’ $17B would be much better utilized.
Luis, the population problem will be solved long before colonization can move sufficient numbers off the planet. But I would agree that with machines and international cooperation, the solar system’s resources will become a tremendous asset for solving Humanity’s problems.
It would seem a deal was cut, you get commercial crew and we get the pork train to nowhere. Once commercial crew is in place the SLS gets canceled by Hillary.
Yeah, that could have been deal making but Commercial Crew is the only practical means of returning human flight back to US soil, soon. Even with the meager rations to Commercial Crew & COTS, the progress has been good. Its not R&D, not cutting edge and private industry, with NASA full-up requirements and management processes out of the picture, can do it a hell of a lot better.
Yep, SLS is a pork train to nowhere. I agree it may boil down to Hillary or someone after the 2016 elections to terminate it. Before then, Falcon Heavy will have flown 3 times and it is likely that the first launch of SLS will be delayed to mid to late 2018, just when the new president and reps are fresh in office.
With the senior politicians in control, canceling SLS (and Orion) is very difficult. These politicians have no imagination and they are in no position to design alternatives. With terminating of Constellation, they saw a threat to jobs in their states, threat to their power base. But something cheaper and better was seen in DIRECT and that design was chosen by them and then modified into a poorer design that is SLS and Orion.
I agree, The VSE that announced the move to commercial space with cargo and crew was announced in 2004. Commercial crew should have been flying already for 3-4 years.
Per Ms. Garver’s comments regarding SLS; Funny how now, that her paycheck is no longer dependent on the successful implementation of the SLS architecture she “sees” the light and is calling for its cancelation. Didn’t she go around touting the value SLS would bring for the future of manned space flight for NASA? Yes, yes she did. I am a firm believer that we (U.S.) need several options for placing various types of payload on orbit. While I have no doubts the private sector will do this much more efficiently than NASA, I also believe NASA needs a launch vehicle they control. Is SLS the answer? Maybe. But as has been debated/commented on many times before; there really is no “perfect” option. If we cancel SLS we are another decade (in NASA contractor time) down the road before we are close to launching anything AT THE VERY LEAST! Put the Orion capsule on Delta IV, Atlas V & F9H and get it flying! Use SLS as a cargo launcher only. Use Bigelow modules for long duration missions in conjunction with Orion. Use Bigelow technology to set up shop on the Moon. Use Bigelow technology to establish a foothold on Mars. Establish a network of fuel depots. Use the Orion/Bigelow vehicle to establish flights to multiple Asteroids so we can start harvesting the vast resources awaiting us! By the time we’ve done this small list of things; we’ll be about 25 years down the road and we’ll hopefully have also developed a true space vehicle. This would be built on orbit and only fly in space. It would be used for trans Mars missions and to the Asteroid belt. In time it would be evolved into a fleet of vehicles that would allow us to fly to the Gas giants.
A. you have clearly never been a government employee – one appointed by the President to carry forth the official Administration policy – not one’s personal policy
B. I find it odd that you criticize Lori for being honest – and overtly so – even if it calls into question what she was directed to do when she worked as the President’s Deputy Administrator of NASA. WHat would you rather have her do – lie?
Unfortunately she was essentially required to lie to Congress when she gave them all those assurances (demanded by Congress) about SLS and Orion.
I would categorize as Lori telling congress exactly what congress wanted to hear. Commitee meetings are kabuki theater and mean nothing the decisions have already been made.
The upcoming Orion test flight will use Delta 4, so why not for the first human mission as well instead of SLS? Sooner NASA can prove Orion is fit for purpose the sooner the next U.S. president is obligated to give American astronauts a realistic destination. At least Ms. Garver has shown that political appointees are adept at being expedient when it suits them.
Why would that obligate the next president to do anything?
Obama doesn’t appear to be too concerned. It’s almost as if he’s left space policy to his successor. That may also include: what to do with Orion.
Man-rating challenges aside, Orion and its production service module (the one ESA is contracted to build, not the one flying on EFT-1) are too heavy for the Delta IV Heavy to lift beyond LEO.
Orion is quite comfortable in LEO until a propulsive module ( remember Agena ? ) or three get there to push it out of LEO.
There are plenty of fairly well developed modern plans on how to turn a Centaur into a propulsive module.
The original Vision for Space Exploration called for the use of the EELV’s. The VSE was tossed in the wastebasket, Griffin was brought in and we got the ESAS. Griffin had his thumb on the scale, as the info was finally leaked, so that the EELV’s were out of the running and only a new launcher would work. EXACTLY the opposite of what was outlined in the VSE.
Didn’t she go around touting the value SLS would bring for the future of manned space flight for NASA? Yes, yes she did
Can you provide an example ? I don’t think that happened.
I found this in 2 minutes on Google: With future budgetary fears for NASA swirling, Garver outlined the agency’s major priorities at a press conference Monday morning. Number one, Garver said, are the Space Launch System (SLS) deep space missions — which Orion falls under.
Posted 10/15/2012
http://www.denverpost.com/c…
Lori Garver was a member of the President’s administration. Her job was to promote and support the Administration. THAT is why she was nominated and confirmed. If she had differences with what the Administration wanted to do she then she was free to leave. And guess what: she left. Now she is a private citizen and can speak her mind. Got that?
Yes, but if Garver opposed SLS than who made it administration policy? Is the administration just a conduit for legislators who in turn work for lobbyists?
Got what? Ms. Garver was Deputy Administrator for approximately 3 years AFTER NASA began working on architecture studies for SLS. If she had such strong feelings that drove her to leave, why did it take 3 years?
What about her role as a boss? What is she to tell the folks on the front lines working on this thing day after day, year after year? That years of their life will be wasted? Based on her opinion?
And it is an opinion; the future of this thing is determined not only by the spirit of its staff but by the congress, which is subject to change. What if the funding goes up? What if it flies? What if we look back and say how fine it is we can loft such large gizmos?
Any of us can articulate why this looks bad now. But the only way this situation will be improved is with legislative change, and axing it is not the only legislative change on the table. One could also fund it well; fund its payloads.
Telling the workers that they’re doing something worthwhile is the most useful thing she could have possibly done.
I am surprised at the lack of realism in some of these comments. In any large organization, the higher you rise, the more opportunity you have to influence decisions, but the less freedom you have to express dissenting opinions. That is the way the game is played, and it is not appropriate to criticize Lori Garver now for expressing her honest concerns about NASA policies.
Totally agree. A lot of people who complain about what NASA simply don’t understand that working in this Federal agency is no different than working in another. If everyone did and said whatever they wanted nothing would ever be accomplished.
So you think those rocket scientists at NASA have to actually be told that SLS is a pork train to no where and is never going to fly? They would have to be living with their heads in the sand to not realize the reality of SLS/Orion .. you honestly think the Nation is going to toss 3.5 billion work of hardware in the pacific for a launch to LEO over and over and keep funding it? Because there is no money for habitats, or landers. So they can do LEO or Lunar Orbit .. With Bigelow planning on charging 26 million for a ride and bunk at their stations, and 36 million for boeing .. you honestly believe the rest of congress will keep funding the porkonauts for 3.5 billion dollar flights to LEO?
Congress is currently in the process of chopping the pork premuim out of the NASA budget .. NASA will be forced to use commercial services or stay on the ground .. they have jacked up the pork premium to the point of collapsing NASA in on itself.
Former Flight Director Chris Kraft thinks this as well…
http://blog.chron.com/scigu…
I agree with Kraft one hundred percent, especially his point there are too many NASA facilities.
Funny how when she was at NASA she was vilified (internally as well as externally) as being anti-SLS, anti-NASA. Now she’s being vilified because she wasn’t anti-SLS enough!
Flying where? Where is the money coming from for missions and mission hardware?
However, since there’s no money for hardware, we’re much more than a decade away from launching missions if we keep funding SLS.
Between now and the proposed first manned SLS flight in 2021, SLS will consume about $19 billion and leaves not a single cent to spare for actual mission hardware. Even afterwards, SLS launch costs will still consume the bulk of the available funding, delaying any development of mission hardware even further into the future.
Cancel SLS and you can start developing mission hardware right away.
Even better, because the launch costs of alternative launchers are much less than SLS, you free up even more funding for those actual missions even after you start flying.
And the difference really is staggering. SpaceX sells F9’s for $60m each, and is pre-selling FH flights for around $120m each. Even if you double the costs, and add another $60m for a Dragon crew capsule, the cost of two FH’s and an F9-Dragon is $660m. For that you get 100 tonnes to orbit and an 7-man crew capsule (for an EOR mission). For the price of a single year’s SLS development budget, you could theoretically buy 4 such actual mission flights every year. [At listed prices, obviously it’s closer to 8 missions/yr. And if SpaceX achieves even partial reusability, costs drop by an order of magnitude.]
So cancel SLS/Orion. Let’s assume you lose one year’s funding to cancellation costs. Then spend $500m/yr on a COTS type multi-vendor program aimed at developing multiple commercial heavy lifters to avoid being entirely reliant on SpaceX; insurance just in case. The remaining $13 billion in projected funding can then be directed to actual mission hardware. Thirteen Billion Dollars for actual mission hardware. Then in 2021, you start flying useful missions with that hardware, rather than SLS/Orion’s Apollo 8 re-enactments.
After 2021, because of the lower launch costs, you can then split the next decade’s funding (assuming the same $2.7b/yr) between flying missions (at $660m per launch, plus say $1b/yr ops) while simultaneously doing additional development for the next generation of mission hardware ($1b/yr for ongoing development.)
Since FH and Dragon-crew should both become available well before 2021, you should be able to fly missions sooner. That means there’d be less than $13b available for hardware development, but you’d be flying missions years earlier. So how about a manned moon landing by 2019 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11? (Allows $9b to develop a lander, service module, and LTO stage.)
There should be thousands of carrot ups on Pauls post!!!!
The public should be taught Pauls post!!!
Every NASA employee that wants NASA to do great things should be checking this post!!!!
Why not???
Because no one gives a dam if NASA explores and settles space or not, INCLUDING most of the you NASA employees!!!!!!!
As long as NASA gets THE MONEY/SLS money, any dam money, you are happy!!!!
YOU ARE BOUGHT!!!!!!!!
Well Mr. Squared
You want me to figure out who the astronaut was on that tv show that was selling the SLS exploration PR line of crap again!!!!
Suggestion!!
Take the meat of Paul’s post and turn it into a letter to be sent to ALL congressmen.
Aren’t many of you Washington lobby types??????.
Isn’t Paul’s post the perfect argument to get started?????????
The Orion is going to be to heavy for EELV’s that was the whole point. Griffin came in with the ESAS and said that existing rockets would either blow up or be to small and expensive to launch Orion, we would need a new launcher to spend 20 billion on … well that is how much CONstellation and the SLS nightmare have blown through. And the PORKONAUTS in congress are not even started on this nightmare… by 2023 when the actual first human luanch will happen it will be closer to 50 billion .. LOL
50 BILLION! … lol only in American porkpoltics can the world see that much waste. It is not about space exploration it is about space pork and now much can you get away with.
Keith; true other than my time in the Marine Corps I’ve never been a gov’t employee. I understand it was her “job” to sell the SLS. I’m not criticizing her commentary, just curious she took all this time to make her opinion known. Personally I feel SLS can serve a value if developed as earlier noted.
Dennis; I agree with the points in the article you noted. I do though think the SLS can serve a purpose. Mr. Kraft is far more capable of speaking on the subject than I ever could.
Joe Cooper; not sure your point? I think what they’ve been doing so far will be of use.
Hari; I know the upcoming Orion flight will be on a Delta IV; that is exactly my point. Use the launchers available to get it flying much sooner than later, if at all.
savuporo; every time she made a presentation or public (i.e. official statement) regarding SLS she was touting its value to the manned space flight program. After all; how else is/was NASA to get crews to space for anything other than a flight to LEO or ISS???
I’m not criticizing her commentary, just curious she took all this time to make her opinion known. Why don’t you ask her?
I’m sorry, I’m very tired and I’ve done something very embarrassing here. My key point was that in her role as deputy admin she ought to have spoken highly of it regardless of her personal thoughts. I suggest that it could have an effect on morale. However I somehow got it in my head that I was responding to someone displeased with SLS and will now slink away, good day to you sir.
The MOST important thing we must do is drop the cost of spacefight. All of the things you suggest using Orion or SLS will delay cheaper Spaceflight, hence delay Space commerce and settlement/us becoming a multi planet species.
Its that simple.
DTARS
agreed.
We should no longer have to worry about the directions the porkonauts in congress move NASA. Once there is domestic commercial human spaceflights to LEO and a commercial destination, Bigelow, we will see the costs lower. We have to go around NASA not through it if we want lower flight costs.
It is in members of congress interest to see big over budget over schedule cost plus development programs going to contractos in their districts. They want big and 10 engineers to turn every bolt in their district. We will never get that as a starter from NASA.
Transportation should have never been allowed to be monopolized by a single agency. The markets will soon be in charge of space transportation as it always should have been.
Steve once wrote that we need a plan on what exactly we should do in space and on the moon and mars and asteroids.
Well maybe the best plan is to just build an affordable highway and let others just decide what they can afford to do.
Example when we first built the internet it had no traffic. Now look at it.
Those missions Paul talks about should all be designed to add to the inner solar system infrastructure.
Once SLS and Orion is killed of course.
Steve tinker was working on a plan to use dragons/draco fuel to start the first fuel depots to start Gto satellite refuel business .
.
Space commerce/ settlement is right there!!!! If only we could get NASA/ public space the hell out of our way.
Just a few smart choices and we would be on our way.
Pick your future!!!
Parallel lines
Regardless of what thou j of the viability of the mars one attempt I found theffact that the first thing they are attempting to do is to out a satellite in mars GEO to setuo permanent communication with a fix point on mars
Spending money to build something permanent!!!!!!
I agree totally with you and have argued that point. Space is a PLACE not a Program. So you want capital moving out, zero G, zero tax for a decade or two. Policies that encourage capital formation etc.
Joe Cooper; no need to slink away. I am not a full fledged SLS supporter nor am I one who screams for its death. I feel that as a cargo launcher it has value for launching very large payloads to LEO.
DTARS; AGREED! the per pound cost to LEO is what is holding us back as much as any issue such as propulsion systems or reusable launchers etc… Also I believe we need to be addressing the need to develop fuel depots and a vehicle that would be reusable. It would be assembled on orbit and only fly in space.
Keith; I have given it some thought, not sure she would even respond to an email. Guess I can try. As for my level of direct involvement in the space program; in my “prior life” I worked on several projects when I was involved in the RF side of electronics. In my present “life” I worked with JSC to get some hand held water quality instruments to NASA for use onboard ISS monitoring the water treatment systems. We provided them with Conductivity & pH meters. (ITT Analytics)
Underneath other people’s comments or replies, there’s a “Reply” button. You can click that to reply to them, rather than just post a new comment each time. (It also means that they receive a notification through Disqus of your reply.)
Tried the reply tab earlier “no joy”
Between now and the proposed first manned SLS flight in 2021, SLS will consume about $19 billion and leaves not a single cent to spare for actual mission hardware.
What do you think the $19 Billion is doing if not building hardware? Certainly as NASA is a gov’t agency there is a certain amount of waste; but even I can’t be so jaded as to think all the $$$$$$ is flushed. If we cancel SLS what then? HOW many MORE times are we going to “start over”??? Advocacy and supporters of manned space flight are fractured into more than two camps it seems. Sadly, every lil group is certain their idea is the way forward and to hell with any idea that doesn’t fit with it. That is the crux of why we are ignored in DC. We are so busy fighting amongst ourselves over “who is right. Who knows best…” that we are marginalized by ourselves, they don’t need to do anything to cut us off at the knees, we’re doing it for them. I take no specific issue with any of your points other than what is noted above.
Mission hardware vs launch hardware. SLS/Orion spends the available funding on developing just the launcher and capsule, virtually nothing left for mission hardware (landers/rovers/orbital refueling/habitat modules/etc/etc.) NASA can’t even afford to build a basic service module for Orion. That will be funded by ESA.
Cancelling SLS/Orion allows you to spend that funding on developing actual mission hardware. With development starting almost immediately.
I gave you an alternative. Cancel SLS/Orion, use commercial launchers/capsules/modules. Free up $16+ billion between now and 2021 to work on actual mission hardware. And free up additional funding thereafter, due to the vastly lower launch costs.
But if we don’t cancel SLS, what then?
From now until 2021, there’s only SLS/Orion development. From 2021 until 2030, there’s SLS-130 development and an SLS/Orion launch every second year (but no actual missions beyond Apollo 8 re-enactments, and only that if ESA build the service module.)
So 16 years and $43 billion to develop just the launchers, and you still have nothing to launch on them, and nowhere to go except around the moon and back.
You cannot have SLS and missions. You have to pick one or the other. You talk about not wanted to “start again”. SLS prevents you from starting at all.
But IS the service module getting funding?
Thank you for the replies; after giving them some thought I am left with the following choices: (A) WE acknowledge that manned space flight has become too expensive a proposition for the U.S. to continue. This will result in our ceding any further participation is such activities and speed up the demise of our country. (B) WE actually implement the findings of the Augustine commission report and get serious about manned space flight. Remove the yearly funding cycle and replace it with a decadal set of directives. (We don’t tell the Navy to contract for a new set of subs or carriers then tell them we only have money this year, see us in a few when things are better) Remove the WH & Congressional from the micro management they have crippled the agency with. The administrator should serve a 10 year term. Funding should be set at a rate equal to or greater; BUT NOT LESS THAN 2% of the National budget. NASA limps along at a rate equal too 7/10ths of 1% of the budget now! Also remove aeronautics from NASA and put it under the DOD where it really belongs. Same for those planetary missions that are Earth centric. Put those under NOAA. Finally, set forth VSE as it was originally intended. Use the commercial space activities when/where possible even for flights beyond LEO. Establish a list of objectives NONE of which should take more than 3-5 years to accomplish. NO MORE plans that call for “something” 15 – 25 years down the road. Have each of those objective build upon the previous objective so we actually accomplish things. Use the building of a high rise tower like the World Trade center as an example. One story at a time, with progress measured in months NOT decades! STOP thinking we can ONLY go/do one thing at a time. Build the infrastructure to allow multiple missions to multiple destinations simultaneously. I am all for option (B)!!!
Paul, do you realize that only about $6 billion funds human spaceflight operations? And of that only around $3 billion goes to SLS development? The remainder is for ISS operations.
$2.7 billion/yr. From 2014 to 2021. Hence $18.9 billion. [Proposed first manned launch of SLS/Orion. Although Garver is suggesting 2023 at the earliest. So add another $5.4 billion.]
From 2014 to 2030. $43.2 billion. [Proposed completion of the 130t block II. Although it seems pretty unlikely. I suspect block II will be cancelled between 2021 and 2030 if we can’t get the whole SLS program cancelled sooner.]
I’m ignoring sunk costs. Obviously SLS/Orion and the prior Constellation work has cost more. But this is unrecoverable. The question is whether SLS block I is worth almost $19 billion and another 7 years delay? (Or worse.) And whether blocks I & II are worth $43 billion and 16 years delay.
Or is there a better way.
When the Ex NASA second in command says that the SLS schedule will be sliding to the right by two years… I tend to believe her. Look to 2023 for that first human launch.
[Can’t reply to your unmoderated comment. Putting it here.]
The lobbyists and politicians in Congress who promote this idea are not promoting it because they think it will reduce their influence. They are promoting it because they think it will reduce their rivals’ influence. It won’t solve anything, it will just lock in more of the worst decisions. Indeed, most of those promoting the idea are supporters of Griffin and Constellation. That’s what they wanted to lock in.
NASA’s budget has been fairly constant for decades. It’s not going to magically change because we all clap our hands and Believe!
Moreso, NASA’s failure to live within its budget, its inability to achieve goals that it has been directed by various Presidents over the decades, isn’t going to get it more funding – but less. What sane person trusts the untrustworthy with even more?
IMO, if you want NASA to get more funding, you need to stop waiting for more funding and blaming everything on not having enough funding. There are people at NASA and co who get this and try to come up with architectures that allow NASA to achieve great goals while staying within their budget. But they are constantly blocked by people who stack on their pet projects, underquote costs, go overbudget and behind schedule; thinking that if you lock Congress into a program, they’ll be forced to cough up more funding.
Guess how well that’s gone over the last 40 years.
[Hell, longer. Even Apollo was cut back at the end.]
But if NASA actually achieved goals within its budget. If programs delivered on time, on budget. If NASA was seen as smart at leveraging more from less. Then people would feel more confident trusting them with more money. And more excited. They’d be saying “More of this!”
Right now, even if you doubled NASA’s funding, I doubt much would change. Oh we’d get some cool new toys, maybe a Europa lander at long last. But those projects would all still run late and overbudget. NASA would still fail to live within its budget, still fail to deliver what it promises. And that failure is why NASA’s budget will never be increased.
[Splitting elements off seems reasonable. Except I’d keep NACA as a civilian agency. It might also be worth splitting HSF and non-HSF into two independent agencies with their own budgets. Part of the reason I’d support this is because I think NASA needs a major shake-up to break the current mindset. But I suspect in reality it would just make things worse. As for short achievable steps incrementally building on each other… yes, that is a personal obsession of mine.]
I am surprised Garver did not also call for cancellation of Orion. as others have pointed out, without SLS, how does Orion fly?
I am also surprised that people feel that SLS is an Obama administrationpriority. I thought it is there because Congress decided it was needed, and not because of anyone in the Administration.
The entire discussion worries me that even at the level of the titular head of the Agency, people fear for their job and cannot speak truthfully because of Congressional impositions. Congressional impositions are likely to change as Congressional reps come and go and as the wind blows, which means the only hope for truth and a strategic way forward is the head of the agency. Yet the administrator does not work for Congress and Obama didn’t seem to care but here is the former Deputy Administrator saying shewas not leading.
What LAurie Garver is poiniting out is why we see that there is not strategic leadership at the helm of NASA.
Orion does not fly, it’s a payload that need to be put in space. As the upcoming test is apparently demonstrating, there are perfectly good launchers around that can do that.
Maybe Garver felt the argument was stronger for cancelling SLS. Nevertheless I hope she made her real opinion known to Mr. Obama. Otherwise why have her as an adviser? Moreover, who pushed Obama into supporting SLS?
Orion is not really an appropriate spacecraft for current human commercial spaceflight due to its expendability, high mass, and inability to land on land, all of which push up operating cost beyond what I think will turn out to be the practical limit. I think practical BEO human spaceflight has to wait for reusable launch systems and better LEO infrastructure.
A version of SLS, e.g. a Shuttle based HHLV, might have made senses back when Shuttle was an ongoing concern, when supply lines were open, people were still employed…not five years after it had all been shut down and required a vast new re-development effort. Now HHLV only makes sense if it is cost effective as compared with other alternatives.
I agree with Luis. I get irate when people say we should postpone space exploration and colonization(Or just our endeavors in space altogether) because we still have problems here.
It takes less than a second to realize that we will [probably] never solve all of our problems here. A person will still be hungry, cold, poor or sick no matter how much we try to help them.
Does that mean I am opposed to solving our problems on earth? No. If somebody is opposed, they can go fly a kite.
But saying we should not go to space due to humanities maladies, even if it is likely that they will never be solved, is saying “Lets never go to space again”.
I agree with the sentiment here. I get irate when people say we should postpone space exploration and colonization(Or just our endeavors in space altogether) because we still have problems here.
It takes less than a second to realize that we will [probably] never solve all of our problems here. A person will still be hungry, cold, poor or sick no matter how much we try to help them.
Does that mean I am opposed to solving our problems on earth? No. If somebody is opposed, I don’t know what to say to them..
But saying we should not go to space due to humanities maladies, even if it is likely that they will never be solved, is saying “Lets never go to space again”.
I do find Lori Garver’s remarks rather troubling. She seems to equate innovation with invention. Technology development is an evolutionary process. Everything automobiles, computers, to cell phones are develop from previous technology through innovation. The automobile has undergone many changes over the last century, but most vehicles still use either the gas or diesel engines. To claim that SLS should be cancelled because the technology is from the 60s and 70s seems more than a little shortsighted. SpaceX’s Merlin engines are based on the pintle injector engines from the LEM and resembles TR-106 engines whose developer coincidentally joined SpaceX in 2002. Orbital’s Taurus II launcher are powered by the original NK-33 engines developed by the Soviets for the N-1 Lunar Launch System. Aerojet simply upgraded these 40+ year old engines renaming them AJ26-58.
I agree .. NASA should be using cars from the 60’s too, hell even computers, We should have the NATION’S TECHNOLOGY agency go retro .. why stop with just using old rocket tech .. lets have our nation showcase that technology does not have to innovate and evolve… hell how about a coal fired steam powered locomotive to move the rocket to the pad…
lets show the whole world we are not afraid of moving backwards if it means protecting 20 billion in pork so far for heavy lift.
You entirely missed the point then. Automobiles today still work on the same basic gas/engine technology as they did a century ago. The engines have undergone many innovations such as fuel injection, but the basic mechanical system is still in use. If Henry Ford had decided in 1905, that gas engines weren’t sufficiently advanced enough to power his cars and wanted to develop hydrogen fuel cell engines, Ford Motor company wouldn’t exist today. Why? Because hydrogen fuel cell technology wasn’t even on the drawing board then. The conditions and level of technology would have precluded that kind of development. The RS-25 (SSME) have undergone numerous design and innovative changes since the 1970’s. Rocketdyne is currently developing the RS-25E and RS-25F versions that reduce overall weight and manufacturing costs. You mentioned the Constellation program. The RS-68 engines slated for Ares V were also being redesigned and improved to reduce 80% of the engine weight and simplify it manufacture. Most technology evolves on the same platforms. The vast majority of innovations concern the same platforms. For instance, modern computers still contain the integrated circuit from computers of the 1960’s. We would not have reach this stage of computer technology if we had simply thrown out the previous system.
I did not miss the point. YOU are missing the whole point of WHY NASA exists and what it is MANDATED to do.
Put another way, it’s like saying let’s throw out our iPads because they are based on 1960’s technology. NASA’s core mission is the extension of humanity into space. Not just developing future technology.
I DID NOT suggest that american CONSUMERS ditch old technology. I DID suggest that the NATION’S agency MANDATED to pursue advanced technology should do just that.
So your anology is totally wrong.
Gee, I am so glad Lori Garver has left NASA. Although I am sure many will dispute this, I am not a NASA cheerleader. However, I do believe we need to finally build a heavy lift booster along the lines of the SLS. Once we have that capacity, many more missions capable will be possible and within our grasp. We clearly don’t have enough money to do what needs to be done, but heavy lift is and must be the long pole in the tent. And for all the SpaceX and commercial space fans, they aren’t the answer to all of our needs. They aren’t the answer for exploration and if you think they are, and can an will do it better and cheaper, you have just been drinking too much Kool-Aide. As for Orion, we need our own exploration capsule/vehicle and Orion is a good place to start. We must stop this stop/start cycle we are locked into on Manned space. We get part way down the road on a technology and then, overcome by questions and doubts, we dump it and throw away all we have achieved up to that point. We have made good progress on Orion and SLS — let’s finish the job now so we have a credible capability in hand. As for Mars 2020, Don’t tell me having a second Curiosity class rover on Mars is over-kill. It is a big planet and there is plenty to explore and check out for two rovers. We certainly need more money for planetary exploration, but with limited resources, we need to focus on Mars for the moment. NASA and the US manned space effort can be great again, but we need to maintain our direction and our focus. Finally, as for Joel Achenbach, his opposition to human space flight is nothing new. I am just sorry the Washington Post has chosen him to be their space reporter. We don’t need any more negative cheerleaders than we already have.
We stuck with the shuttle for nearly 40 years from conception to cancellation. Was it really worth the $100+ billion spent on it? Did it advance human spaceflight $100+ billion worth?
What you advocate is called the “sunk cost fallacy”. We’ve come so far, we must go on. AKA, spending good money after bad.
If SLS is a bad program, then cancelling it sooner rather than later is a good thing. And SLS is a bad program.
We have an excuse for the shuttle. NASA didn’t know any better. It was only their second major launch program, it might have confounded the critics and done what the advocates claimed (lower launch costs, increased flight-rate, freed up funding for other projects.) However, we have no such excuse for SLS. We know is isn’t doing what was claimed. Recycling shuttle parts hasn’t lowered development costs, or “preserved” knowledge, or saved the workforce. It hasn’t increased NASA’s funding, nor provided new capability (and won’t until after 2021).
Except there’s no funding for “many more missions”. We’re already cutting back good programs, thanks to bad programs like SLS.
Cancelling SLS now frees up $19 billion by 2021 to spend on missions using other lower cost launchers. Failing to cancel SLS means we can’t even begin to pay for missions until after SLS is complete (whenever that is.) We can’t start until SLS stops. And judging by the shuttle and the space-station, SLS will never really stop, it will continue to consume the same amount of money whether in development or operations until it is cancelled.
SLS is spending all your money on the pole, and none on the tent. Surely the goal is to get the most tent with the money available, not the most pole? SLS buys zero tent.
·
— Realize that several shuttle replacement efforts that were begun and then cancelled over the years — in one case, the technology actually buried I believe. That left us with obsolete and dangerous launcher technology with catastrophic results. How many astronauts would still be alive if we had replaced the Shuttles with a more modern and safer launch
vehicle? My guess is we probably would have avoided the loss of at least one if not both shuttles with their crews if the Shuttle had been replaced on a
timely basis. You can’t get down the road in life if you keep turning around and going back. This is the kind of thing you have to tell your children — it shouldn’t be necessary to say this to adults, but it seems that it is.
There are unavoidable technology risks and NO PLAN IS EVER GOING TO BE PERFECT AND SATISFY ALL OF OUR NUMEROUS AND DIVERGENT CRITICS. That isn’t an
excuse for inaction or indecision. That isn’t a fallacy, it’s a fact
— “No funding” for many more missions. True at the moment, but that can and will change. Once we have heavy lift available, It will be much easier to design and build far more capable probes and vehicles, manned and unmanned, than can be launched currently and give us far better results. Clearly, it would be better to have more funding now. I haven’t given up on obtaining additional funding, but right now the door is only wide enough to do one of these projects at a time. The booster is the key — it is the
long pole in the tent. Once we have that, many more doors for exploration will be opened and we may actually be able to launch more than one of these
more capable probes simultaneously. You have to pay to play. This is the cost of moving forward.
— We would have more projects under the tent without SLS? Maybe in the short term, but we are never going to get over this hump without building heavy lift and there is no way to do that without spending money. If we need to temporarily cut back on planetary exploration, and are given no alternative
funding, then we will just have to do it. Spending money on bigger and better boosters is not a luxury, it is essential for the continued growth of the space program. Don’t think we need boosters? Just think how many projects we could have without rockets all together! They wouldn’t be able to go very far, or do very much but they sure would look good on the
ground and pay for a bunch of researchers and graduate students — and we would have a very big and full tent. Absurd? Yes, but not significantly
different than the point you apparently are advocating. Congress and the Administration need to be made to understand that you can’t have a space
program without spending a certain amount of money – a critical mass so-to-speak – necessary to conduct existing exploration programs and develop new
capabilities to permit human exploration in deep space. Without this expansion, we will have unilaterally resigned ourselves to the dust-bin of history and left exploration to those nations and corporations with the courage and the vision to take the necessary risks and make the necessary investments to get the job done.
I think it is pretty clear which side you are on in that debate.
Not just “at the moment.” Budget projections suggest that operating SLS/Orion will continue to consume a similar amount of funding as developing SLS/Orion. As happened with the shuttle. As happened with ISS. There will be no money freed up when SLS block I is “completed”, nor when SLS block II is “completed” (if ever).
As was said during the Augustine commission re:Constellation, if someone donated it to NASA, whole and paid for, they still couldn’t afford to operate it. SLS is the same.
But there is an alternative, as shown by the much more cost effective COTS and CC programs. Just half a billion a year won NASA two brand new launchers, two completely independent cargo systems (no single point of failure) including a new return capability, and in the next couple of years up to three crewed systems (on two completely independent launchers).
And SpaceX is building a 50t-LEO variant, which they are already pre-selling at less than $125m/launch. The USAF is sniffing around to lower its own costs, because even if the price tripled, it’s still cheaper than the alternative. Hasn’t NASA always tried to get its hands on that DoD money? Here you have a gift handed to you, and you want to turn your back and continue to do things in the way that failed for over 40 years.
That’s what I don’t understand about people like you. Why do you persist in thinking that doing the same thing over and over will get a different result? How is yet another overpriced launcher that you can’t afford going to be magically different from the last overpriced launcher that you couldn’t afford?
We’ve tried your way for 40 years. You failed. Get out of the way.
…And there it is. Inevitable. You are paralysed until you get more money. It underlies nearly every major program at NASA. Wait until we get more funding, we have to convince them to give us more funding, we can’t do anything until we get more funding. Wait until the public realise… wait until the next President… wait until all advocates sing in harmony… wait until Senator X or Administrator Y retires… And then! Oh then we’ll get the money we deserve!
It’s not going to happen. NASA has a budget of $17b and even that may drop in the future. You need learn to live within your means. If you can’t, you need to admit that once and for all, and get out of the way. There are plenty of people at NASA who get this, who are looking for better ways to deliver goals, but they are constantly blocked by people like you.
“This is the kind of thing you have to tell your children — it shouldn’t be necessary to say this to adults, but it seems that it is.”…you can’t afford the big rocket that you want. You have to settle for what you can actually afford.
And where does the funding come from to build something to launch with your big rocket?