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

NASA and State of the Union Speech (Updated with quotes)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 20, 2015
Filed under
NASA and State of the Union Speech (Updated with quotes)

Bolden: Keep Moving the Ball Forward, Don’t Get Discouraged, SpacePolicyOnline
“Stressing that he was not suggesting President Obama would say anything about space exploration in tonight’s State of the Union address, Bolden said the President could say “for the first time in human history we may be going inside the 20-years-to-Mars.” Sending humans to Mars still is “without a doubt” at least 20 years away, he clarified, but “we’re about to slip under that 20-year threshold.”
Report of the Space Task Group, 1969, NASA
“We conclude that NASA has the demonstrated organizational competence and technology base, by virtue of the Apollo success and other achievements, to carry out a successful program to land man on Mars within 15 years.”
Keith’s update: When I was growing up in the mid-60s I seem to recall NASA talking about going to Mars by 1981. That was less than 20 years, Charlie. Indeed, NASA has been talking about going to Mars “in 20 years” or “within 15 years” for the past 40-50 years. Seems like negative progress to me. Not sure what you are bragging about.
President Obama’s State of the Union Address – Remarks As Prepared for Delivery, Medium.com
“I want Americans to win the race for the kinds of discoveries that unleash new jobs converting sunlight into liquid fuel; creating revolutionary prosthetics, so that a veteran who gave his arms for his country can play catch with his kid; pushing out into the Solar System not just to visit, but to stay. Last month, we launched a new spacecraft as part of a re-energized space program that will send American astronauts to Mars. In two months, to prepare us for those missions, Scott Kelly will begin a year-long stay in space. Good luck, Captain and make sure to Instagram it.”
“I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know whatI know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe. The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it.”

Keith’s note: Astronaut Scott Kelly will be a featured guest at the State of the Union speech so you can expect some mention of NASA.
– What do you think the President will say about NASA?
– What would you LIKE the President to say about NASA?

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

130 responses to “NASA and State of the Union Speech (Updated with quotes)”

  1. moon2mars says:
    0
    0

    More empty words and hot air from this President that suppposedly is NASA’s biggest fan is all you will get, I’m not even going to waste my time listening to him. Just have to endure his remaining days…

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      And the world will suddenly bloom roses after the next election? Or will you have to endure another Democratic President?

      • moon2mars says:
        0
        0

        Obama’s record speaks volumes, no need for me to expound. Surely you are aware of his record right?

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          You’re assuming that any likely successor will do anything seriously differently.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Rand Paul has said he would do things differently. He would reduce the NASA budget 25%. None of the other candidates have issued a specific plan.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I don’t see Rand Paul as any kind of likely successor. Any (microscopic) chance he ever had disappeared after his visit to the Rachel Maddow show.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Yep. Because free market!

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          His record regarding NASA?
          I recall when President Obama wanted hundreds of million for NASA in the stimulas to kickstart commercial crew he was fought tooth and nail by Republican Richard Shelby and only was allowed to spend 50 million. That record?
          Or when President Obama proposed in his 2010 NASA budget that NASA receive an increase of 6 billion over five years to fully fund commercial crew that was chopped by republicans in the house to a one year appropriation of 270 million. That record?
          Or when President Obama asked for an additonal 600 million to launch an extra shuttle mission for the AMS to the ISS republicans were just a couple votes short of cutting it . That record?
          I can list dozens of NASA increases President Obama proposed and was chopped by Republicans.
          Advanced propulsion .. chopped by republicans. Fuel depot technology .. chopped by republicans .. THAT record?

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Yes, that record. Obama repeatedly attempted to put NASA on a track that would accelerate Commercial Crew. He was forced by Congress to repeatedly delay it.

          • RocketScientist327 says:
            0
            0

            As a conservative Republican I can say with 100 percent certainty that Vlad is correct.

            Frank Wolf, Richard Shelby, Lamar Smith, and Bill Posey lead that charge… and were quite successful.

          • LPHartswick says:
            0
            0

            Moon…been there, done that. Enough said.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            The Moon’s surface area is roughly the size of Asia. We visited 7 pinpoints for a total of a few days.
            If we plant a flag on Mars, then is it “Mars…been there, done that”?

      • JimNobles says:
        0
        0

        Actually, what is Hillary’s stand on NASA and space issues, anyone know?

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          http://www.thespacereview.c

          Lori Garver was her space policy advisor during the 2008 election. I would suspect that she would be a shoo-in for NASA head in a Clinton admin. So I would look at her ideas.

          BTW – I don’t assume that Ms. Clinton will be the automatic nominee. Remember, she lost the nomination to the junior senator from Illinois. She was a poor candidate. She also has strong opposition from the left within her party, and absolute hostility from the right in general electorate.
          Now she may get the nod, but the Dems have a deep bench, and almost certainly will win in 2016 (the famous Blue Wall), so I would look at the other possibilities.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Garver is the only presidential advisor I have heard that combines solid technical knowledge with an achievable vision, reduce cost to make human spaceflight practical for many people, not just possible for a chosen handful. Remember she got her start directing the L5 Society, the first big organization of space enthusiasts to say that we wanted to go ourselves, not just watch and drool. I do not claim to know, but I heard that Obama would have appointed her Administrator but there was too much opposition from the old boy network.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            I’m a member, too, of her fan club. A very good public servant [among many, I should add].

          • Chuck_Divine says:
            0
            0

            Actually she got her start as Executive Director of the National Space Institute. NSI merged with the L5 Society. If my memory of the time is accurate, NSI’s membership was declining and L5’s was increasing. The merged organization became National Space Society because NSI changed its name to NSS before the merger.

          • Bernardo de la Paz says:
            0
            0

            As I recall, Garver came in through either NSI, or NSS after the merger. No real L5’er would ever have anything to do with a Mars focused space policy. It was axiomatic to L5 that sending humans to Mars is a waste of time & effort. Nor does she have a technical background.

            As for reducing costs of human space flight, have you been paying any attention the past few years?! On a per seat and per pound basis, COTS and CCDev are making even the shuttles look cheap to operate. At current prices, even Soyuz makes shuttle seats look cheap.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Garver had absolutely nothing to do with the Mars First policy either with the NSS or NASA. She has had to defend it in front of Congress because she was given no choice. Congress passed the law and Bolden told her she had to follow it. This forced lack of candor may have been a factor in her resignation.

            Garver’s strategy is LEO first. We need access to LEO. With fuel depots and servicing infrastructure in LEO, and with access by tourists and researchers at modest cost, we make human spaceflight an enterprise instead of a stunt, something that hundreds of people will be doing every day. Then we can move outward from there.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Here is Garver touring a mock-up of a Bigelow BA330 space station:

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Average cost per shuttle flight, 1.5 billion over the life of the program. I do not recall Falcon 9/Dragon cargo flights costing 1.5 billion each.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Indeed. like our recent election for Governor here in Florida, where just about any Democrat should have been able to knock of an unpopular and awful governor, what did we do? We chose the one Democrat who couldn’t do it. A switcher.
            Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s time is past, even if Mr. Bush decides to run.

          • LPHartswick says:
            0
            0

            OMG! You just sent a chill down my spine.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Glad to be of service!

        • LPHartswick says:
          0
          0

          Not good. Plenty of money for midnight basketball and food stamps. I assume it will be similar to her husbands. Look at the funding graph trends and you will have your answer.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Which trend?

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Ya gosh .. if only we could, somehow as a Nation, cut out all that midnight basketball THEN we could have a real space program. The moon, Mars .. hell we could be funding flights to Mars every week if it wasn’t for that midnight basketball. Man what a drain on the budget.

  2. David H. Levy says:
    0
    0

    WOnderful. I hope his lengthy flight is a big success.

  3. Joe Denison says:
    0
    0

    -What do you think the President will say about NASA?

    I expect to hear the President say something about how wonderful his plan for NASA has been and how much he cares about space exploration and blah blah blah. It will probably be a 10-20 second mention that will lead into some statement like, “If we can go to the moon we can provide cradle to grave entitlements for all.”

    It makes me sick whenever he mentions NASA. At least Bush made an effort to make it look like he cared. Not so with the current POTUS.

    – What would you LIKE the President to say about NASA?

    I would like the President to spend more than 20 seconds outlining how important space exploration is to America both in an economic and inspirational sense.

    Then I would like him to say that he will trade budget cuts in other areas of government in order to increase NASA’s budget by $4 Billion a year. $800 Million extra for Orion, $300 Million extra for SLS, $400 Million extra for commercial crew, and $2.5 Billion for development of hab modules/EML-2 station and reusable lunar lander (based on the Boeing proposal but competitively bid with fixed price contracts).

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      “At least Bush made an effort to make it look like he cared.” Yes, made it look like he cared. He started programs requiring vast funding but kicked the can down the road. Obama is not a friend to HSF, nor NASA in general, but he did not open a money black hole that could only end badly. I really truly want a return to the Moon, but Bush wasn’t really going to make it happen, and Obama won’t. Its going to come from commercial space, with gov assistance.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      WOW what a waste of money.. 800 million MORE for Orion? The OIG says 16.5 BILLION to develop a 4 person water landing DISPOSABLE capsule and you want more? The GAO is even more cruel they are pegging it at 23 billion ..

      • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
        0
        0

        wow hadn’t heard those numbers is it $16.5-23 B to get through EM-2 (first crewed test flight) does that include money spent under Constellation or just since it was revived post cancellation.

        • Joe Denison says:
          0
          0

          If current funding holds it will be around $15.2 Billion through EM-2 including CxP.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            I believe that 15.2 billion number has a strength of about 70% of actually occuring. With Congress driving human spaceflight at NASA, you REALLY trust it will come in at 15? The GAO was not confident at all.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Read the GAO report that is barely a month old and see what they have to say about projected costs.

          “Additionally, the Orion program is currently behind its planned schedule and is facing significant technical risks”

          “For 7 of the 10 success criteria, however, review officials highlighted known issues that could compromise Orion’s success.”

          “Significant cost and schedule impacts could result if a redesign is required to address any of these unresolved design risks”
          You can read the full report here:

          http://www.gao.gov/assets/6

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          That does not include Constellation, that is considered a different program. I believe about 12-14 billion went down that rabbit hole.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Lololololol
        I see the landing capsule, but wtf is the spaceship

      • Joe Denison says:
        0
        0

        You keep referencing a years old GAO report. The numbers up to now indicate it will be around $15.2 Billion through EM-2. Part of the reason it has cost more than it needed to was that it has never gotten the funding spike it needed to accelerate development.

        I am surprised that you didn’t object to my desire for increased commercial crew funding. After all Musk is bringing Dragon to market right? He developed Falcon Heavy “without” government funds. Why can’t he develop Dragon V2 or Dragon V3 without NASA funding? Why isn’t commercial crew a waste of money?

        Orion isn’t perfect but to throw a good, workable spacecraft away because it isn’t flashy enough or because Musk didn’t come down from the clouds and give it to us is foolhardy.

        • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
          0
          0

          If you want made to measure items you have to pay for them. A small capsule launched on a Falcon 5 was what Musk was developing. NASA wanted something bigger.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Quite simply it is because at the end of the day, my tax dollars, will bring to market a commercial transportation vehicle and service, that will allow, anyone with a big enough checkbook, to get a ride into space. Not the case with Orion. History has shown that once a commercial transportation service becomes operational, the price starts to decline. 23 billion or your number of 15 billion is still an insane amount to spend on a disposable capsule. NASA needs infrastructure that doesn’t get drowned in the Atlantic after each flight.
          For Orion, I see my tax dollars not being invested for the highest return to both myself and the Nation. I would prefer that NASA fund space based vehicles, more in line with a NAUTILUS – X, than a disposable capsule.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          The OIG report was over a year old but the GAO report was only last month. Here is what the GAO said Dec 10th.

          “Additionally, the Orion program is currently behind its planned schedule and is facing significant technical risks and officials indicated that the program will not achieve launch readiness by December 2017. The Orion program has submitted a schedule to NASA headquarters that indicates the program is now developing plans for a September 2018 EM-1 launch, though that date is preliminary until the program establishes official cost and schedule baselines now planned for May 2015.”

          It also stated:

          “our ongoing work indicates that the Orion program passed its preliminary design review—a review that evaluates the adequacy of cost schedule and technical baselines and whether the program is ready to move forward—in August 2014 by meeting the minimum standards for all 10 success criteria. For 7 of the 10 success criteria, however, review officials highlighted known issues that could compromise Orion’s success.

          Specifically, the review officials noted concerns about several unresolved design risks, including technical challenges with the parachute system and heat shield. For example, during parachute testing, NASA discovered that when only two of the three main parachutes are deployed, they begin to swing past each other creating a “pendulum” effect. This effect could cause the capsule to increase speed and to hit the water at an angle that may damage the capsule thereby endangering the crew. Further, NASA faces choices between differing design solutions to resolve cracking issues discovered during manufacturing of the heat shield that protects the capsule during re-entry. Program officials plan to make a decision prior to the program’s critical design review, based on additional testing and analysis, about how to resolve these risks with a goal of limiting design changes to the capsule’s structure. Both the parachute and heat shield challenges must be resolved before EM-2 because each represents a significant risk to crew safety. Significant cost and schedule impacts could result if a redesign is required to address any of these unresolved design risks.”

          and….

          “The long-term affordability of the human exploration programs are also uncertain, as we found in May 2014, because NASA’s cost estimates for the programs do not provide any information about the longer-term, life-cycle costs of developing, manufacturing, and operating the launch vehicles. “

          it continued:

          “It is important to note at this point that the SLS, Orion, and GSDO programs are intrinsically linked. None of the three can satisfy NASA’s human exploration goals on its own, and cost overruns or delays in any single program, such as the significant funding and technical issues now facing the Orion program, will directly affect the others. Without a realistic integrated flight date guiding the efforts of all three programs, and meaningful reporting of progress, insight into the progress of NASA’s human exploration portfolio and the agency’s ability to make informed management decisions regarding the allocation of resources across the three programs is limited. Further, NASA’s plans for human exploration beyond SLS’s second flight in 2021 remain unclear.”

          So the take away of the GAO seems pretty clear about what direction NASA’s projected costs are heading.

          For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. ET Wednesday, December 10, 2014

          http://www.gao.gov/assets/6

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          I didn’t mention SpaceX or Musk. I mentioned two government agency’s reports on Orion.

          Musk has stated he is more than willing to fund Dv2.0 on his own dime and would if necessary.

          The federal government has ordered an agency, NASA, to procure a service on a timeline a lot faster than SpaceX can fund with internal resources so SpaceX submitted a bid to provide that service and how much they charge.

          Commercial crew isn’t a waste for several reasons.

          A) Reusability.

          B) Commercial so it is dual use for both NASA and the private sector lowering costs for NASA.

          C) Being conducted under a competitive umbrella putting downward pressure on costs.

          To name a few.

        • LPHartswick says:
          0
          0

          All too true.

      • LPHartswick says:
        0
        0

        Those were choices made by constrained funding from the start. You guys have to let go of this fantasy that you are going anyplace significant on a Radio Shack budget. As the farmers say, “if you want nice fresh oats..pay for them. If you don’t mind oats that have gone through the horse once, that comes a little cheaper.” Consistent and appropriate funding that is commensurate with its importance to the country’s future is what we need to have a thoughtful plan for the exploration of our solar system. Anything else is a joke and doomed to failure, no matter what you call it.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          The only fantasy that has to be let go is that space transportation is a stalinist big government only program. Google and Fidelidy investing 1 billion in SpaceX is not a fantasy and hardly represents “radio shack” budget. As farmers say… is that before all the farm subsidies or after?
          Cost plus, fixed fee, sole source, non competitively bid FAR contracts, with enough escalator clauses to reach the moon without a rocket as a means for financing space transportation is the 50 year old fantasy that is ending.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Gosh .. maybe if you split the work up even more .. you know .. handed out some additional make work contracts for a few more political districts, opened up a couple more NASA centers in a couple more states, spead that pork across another 50 political districts you wouldn’t have to deal with constrained funding.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          SpaceX determined that launch vehicles are too low a margin business to fund Mars. 15 – 20 launches a year won’t do it. So they are going into the satellite business. Much higher margins, and for their communication network, on-going tolls.

  4. ChuckM says:
    0
    0

    Obama might also bring out Buzz Aldrin to remind everyone that “we don’t need to go to the moon because we’ve already been there”. GEEEZZ!!! When he made this dumb statement at KSC a few years ago I felt right away that he knew nothing about human space exploration. Another dumb statement he made later was regarding the termination of the shuttle program. He mentioned at a news conference that stopping the shuttle program was a call not made under his watch. What he did not have the guts to say was that he had the Executive Authority to reverse GWB’s decision.

    As for Hilary supporting NASA, I betting that she will give NASA a lot of support. To me she comes across as very pragmatic. She always does her research before supporting any initiative.

    And like many of you, I’ll be watching something else on TV other than the SOTU.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      He EXTENDED the life of the shuttle. There were many reasons the program was ending – mostly cash and safety related.

      • ChuckM says:
        0
        0

        The program always had cash and safety problems and they were dealt with.
        What annoys me is that a proven acces to space was abandoned because of pure stupid politics. Bolden didn’t help either in extending the shuttle program because he wanted to appeased obama. Instead, he insulted all those who worked on the shuttle program by saying that riding the space shuttle is like playing Russian roulette. What a jerk!!

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          The safety problems were getting more extreme. the shuttle killed its crew roughly every 50 launches and they reached 135 missions.

          After the Columbia accident the official review board concluded:
          The Shuttle has few of the mission capabilities that NASA originally promised. It cannot be launched on demand, does not recoup its costs, no longer carries national security payloads, and is not cost-effective enough, nor allowed by law, to carry commercial satellites. Despite efforts to improve its safety, the Shuttle remains a complex and risky system that remains central to U.S. ambitions in space. Columbia’s failure to return home is a harsh reminder that the Space Shuttle is a developmental vehicle that operates not in routine flight but in the realm of dangerous exploration.

          The costs were skyrocketing. $1/2 billion per flight in isolation, $1 1/2 billion per flight all costs included.

          Bush then published his plan:

          “Retire the Space Shuttle as soon as assembly of the International Space Station is completed, planned for the end of this decade.”

          Altho he wanted to start the lunar program, the shuttle itself was to expire based upon the ISS build. Obama followed that lead and stretched the life of the shuttle until it was done. He pushed to continue the commercial space taxi program started by Bush, but faced repeated budget cuts which has slowed the process.

          The question of what new things in HSF like Constellation, ARM, whatever, is a different matter.

          • ChuckM says:
            0
            0

            I respect your remarks Yales; but you should NEVER surrender a legacy space access capability unless you are sure that the incoming capability exceeds the safety, operations, and costs requirements of the existing one. This is straight forward smart program/project management. Unfortunately, our politicians have their own version of political project management. So so sad!!

            Look at us now. One successful flight of ORION but it won’t be operational until 2021. 2017 was the promised date by the bush plan. NASA knows that if it’s given the budget that 2021 date can be advanced. But nooooo, our President wants to announce tonight that his next two year will be like Robin Hood.

            Keep up the comments

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            You’re referring to the Tarzan Rule – never let go of the vine you’re swinging on until you have the next vine firmly in hand!
            Always a good plan.

            In this case, unfortunately, we do have a gap. Either in the Bush plan, where you have a multi-year gap between the shuttle and the Ares 1, or the Obama semi-plan – shuttle then commercial crew

            The Bush plan then extended, but didn’t fund, a BEO leg, while Obama (under pressure) extended to BEO with SLS/Orion.
            All this becomes academic (but expensive) when commercial crew rolls out by 2017 and SpaceX’s BFR rolls out at the same time as the production SLS.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            In his original proposal Bush did not plan any LEO role for Constellation as US participation in ISS was to end with the last Shuttle mission. The IPs were up in arms but America was going for the Moon, Apollo on Steroids, Shakleton Crater here we come! Soon ISS got extended and “notional” Ares I/Orion flights were added to ISS to dilute the parade of Soyuz.

          • LPHartswick says:
            0
            0

            Is there any real hardware being built for SpaceX’s BFR? People throw around talk about “Falcon Heavy” like they still do about a workable fusion reactor. It sounds like what Mick Jagger said was “only a kiss away!” And BTW how big is big with SpaceX’s BFR? 200 tons to orbit; and 80 tons to the Moon or Mars?

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            The Falcon Heavy is penciled in for July launch. It has multiple flight contracts with private and government clients.
            As to the BFR, the engine development is racing along. It is undergoing component testing at NSA Stennis.

          • Mike says:
            0
            0

            Why should you never trade away legacy space access capability? What was flying the shuttle gaining us? There were no boundaries being pushed or discoveries being made anymore with the shuttle. As much as I dislike buying seats from Russia, NASA shouldn’t be spending billions to achieve the same end (putting people on the ISS) as spending 1/10th the money to fly on Soyuz. The Shuttle pushed boundaries back when it was built, but 30 years later, we were just dumping billions into a system that wasn’t teaching us anything or getting us any closer to being a space faring nation. NASA’s job is to explore space and push the envelope on aerospace technology. The shuttle was doing neither of those things at its time of retirement.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            There are two ways of looking at legacy. One is in terms of actual operations. The Shuttle was actually requiring a lot less maintenance thanks to the improvements in the foam insulation. We could have kept it operational another couple years while accelerating Commercial Crew. What really happened was that the Shuttle was dropped but the most expensive parts of the Shuttle processing flow, the massive segmented SRBs, VAB, crawlers, MLPs and the RS-25s were kept, even though the latter would be expendable, and for landing they abandoned the relatively practical landing on land that Commercial Crew had chosen and went all the way back to Apollo and the Carrier task force needed for ocean recovery.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            our President wants to announce tonight that his next two year will be like Robin Hood.
            After living thru the previous era of King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham, I think its time for Robin of Locksley.

            http://imgc.allpostersimage

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            If you read the entire document the CAIB concluded that the Shuttle could and should be kept flying safely until a replacement vehicle was operational, and further said that the vehicle that replaced the Shuttle should be designed solely for human access to LEO because the nation was (and is) not prepared to commit the resources that would be required to safely achieve a more ambitious goal. CAIB assumed the Shuttle replacement would be the Orbital Space Plane or a similar concept that would support ISS. As it happens Dragon and CST are very similar. It’s too bad no one followed their recommendations at the time.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Alas, there was to be no replacement within the available time.
            Bush decided that the shuttle should fly until the iss was complete and then expire. That was the direct position of the Vision statement. Not much for LEO.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          The production lines for Shuttle replacement parts IMMEDIATLY started shutting down after President Bush stated that the space shuttle was going to retired in sept of 2010. President Bush outlined this in 2004. By the time President Obama presented his first NASA budget the shuttle was dead. It is silly to pretend otherwise. Production lines were GONE. It would have taken BILLIONS and YEARS to get the next shuttle flight. If Commercial crew would have been funded starting under The Vision for Space Exploration, as President Bush intended under COTS-D, there would have been no gap at all. Republican foot dragging was a political move so the republicans could say “america has to rely on the russians” which is EXACTLY what they did after EVERY CUT they made to President Obama’s commercial crew funding proposals.

          • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
            0
            0

            in theory you had 14 tanks when Obama came into office which meant 14 flights so you could have spaced those out enough to restart the ET tank line which was the long pole (2-3 years) and helped close the gap if needed, but it would have been tough to extend the shuttle until commercial crew was ready unless you maybe went down to 2 shuttles flying on 6 month centers doing supplies and expedition crew rotations and use the third for spare parts.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            And would the cost of ramping up absorb the funding for the follow-on replacement?

          • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
            0
            0

            I guess which is the bigger concern a funding gap or gap between spacecraft capabilities

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            At this point it becomes academic. The shuttles are museum displays.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            You might wish to read Wayne Hale’s blog. http://nasawatch.com/archiv… Hale makes it clear that that bridge was burned and the ashed dispersed before the end of the Bush administration.

            Here’s the facts. Every one of the hundreds of contracts for unique Shuttle components was cancelled and closed out by 2008. This was done in a way that made it impossible to restart production. Vital tooling had been destroyed and craftsmen who knew the processes had dispersed. New suppliers would have to be chosen and qualified, a process that would take years and for which no money was made available by Congress.

            The Bush plan would even have left the billion-dollar AMS rusting on the ground. The Obama administration scoured the warehouses and managed to scrape together enough parts for two more shuttle flights, the last one with no backup. That was the best that could be done. There was no way Orion could have been used because it was years behind and because the Bush Administration had refused to consider launching it on the Delta IV, claiming it was impossible. Orbital Space Plane did not exist because it had been cancelled by Bush. Commercial Crew was initiated and will take over but could not be accelerated to close the gap because the Obama funding proposal for it was slashed by Congress.

          • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
            0
            0

            14 tanks at two flights a year get you to 2016 which if commercial crew had met original targets would have been 2015-2016 timeframe thus the gap is reduced with existing assets if you don’t want to try and find new vendors over 7 years to go beyond the flights we flew. Yes restarting lines would have been difficult but enough money and creative engineering we could have found a way if necessary. But the point is moot now as the birds have been gutted and mothballed behind the velvet ropes at museums.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            Yes restarting lines would have been difficult but enough money and creative engineering we could have found a way if necessary.

            {sigh} And if my grandmother had balls she’d be my grandfather.

            NASA’s not getting more money, they’ll get a flat budget at best, less at worse. If your plan is predicated on “if NASA gets more money”, your plan is a failure.

          • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
            0
            0

            the plan said if you wanted to go beyond 2016 restart the lines. 14 tanks could have been stretched to help close the Commercial crew gap.

          • LPHartswick says:
            0
            0

            Then if that is really true; we should all start learning Manderin, and will the last person to leave please turn out the lights. Welcome to the Portugal of the 21st Century.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            China has some quite serious, potentially existential, problems. With our vigorous mix of enterprise and freedom, we will be exploiting space far beyond anything NASA can or will do, and China will be a distant also-ran.

            Also, even if NASA gets no greater budget:
            For example, NASA can launch Falcon Heavies at 1/6 the cost of Delta Heavies, kilogram to kilogram payload.
            Bigelow BA300 will launch an astronaut to its station and house them for months for $26 million. A microscopic share of ISS cost.
            Etc.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            China doesn’t like funding human spaceflight anymore than Republicans here. It has to be a jobs program first and foremost both here and there.
            Remember what Chinese human spaceflight managers kept asking Administrator Griffin when he visited there ” how do you keep getting funding” he was asked this several times. China RARELY launches humans and their space station schedule has already moved to the right twice.. 2020 to 2021 and now 2022 and signs it isn’t going to stop there. Funding troubles on the horizon.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      And we all understand that Republicans can not wait to fund Democratic ideas. I mean hell, Hillary, like Obama understands all they have to do is SUGGEST to republicans to fund something and IMMEDIATELY Republicans lead the charge to make sure those funding increases are voted on and passed.
      The last six years prove that .. Remember when Obama asked on three seperate occasions for 1 billion increase in NASA .. remember how republicans voted?
      Remember when Obama asked republicans for a 6 billion dollar increase over 5 years for NASA … remember how republicans voted?

  5. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    I want the president to say he will replace Mr. bolden with Newt and let him unleash commercial space with his moon plan!!! 🙂 That would be kick ass lol

    Line up the affordable rockets compete for a moon prize. Let’s get to work up there!

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Also have prizes for satellite repair missions . Example another Hubble repair mission.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      I would prefer that Newt be kept far from any position of power.

      There is in fact a quite vigorous, $30 million moon prize:
      http://lunar.xprize.org/

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Maybe Newt is a little over the top lol

        Point is I wish Obama would tell the american people that Orion, SLS is just a jobs program. And that instead of having a job program building launch vehicles, that NASA starts a different kind of jobs program, a jobs program to create the building blocks to go to space, to go to the moon, to study moon gravity or mars gravity.
        Example one of the guys at boondocks suggested using dragon 2s and spin it near ISS with a person in it to study Mars or moon gravity after dropping off and picking up astronauts. Well shouldn’t NASA have a fixed price prize for such a study? ( a job) and they take proposals on the best cost effective way to get that data. Maybe Spacex or Boeing reuses their used capsules to do such a mission/ job. Two dragon labs maybe. The President needs to tell the american people it is time NASA provides the highway PLAN, hiring commercial space to do the important job of getting us working and living off this rock instead of pretending to explore!!

        Something like that is what wish he would say. Not more education inspiration, exploration bullshit.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          Lots of government spending is for jobs- transportation being an example. This is not in itself a bad thing.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          “create the building blocks to go to space”

          Hey, that sounds like the Space Technology Program. It actually was initiated by the Obama Administration and actually included orbital demonstrations of cryogenic fuel depots. Then Congress slashed the funds, degrading the fuel depot project to ground tests.
          http://www.nasa.gov/mission

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            And end result? Don’t look to our government to get us into Space. We have to do it ourselves, which is the reason I’m a Musk fan.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            The end result was Republican congressional members from space states immediately understood the long term implications of President Obama’s NASA proposals and instantly killed them.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      And the Republicans in the house would vote for this and kill the SLS/Orion? A jobs program for all those southern republican states?

  6. James Lundblad says:
    0
    0

    If deflation sets in, government will wish they had more technology and infrastructure projects to invest in.

    http://www.bloombergview.co

  7. Steven Rappolee says:
    0
    0

    I would like to see a $250 Billion per year carbon tax
    Invested for 67 years in a social security sovereign wealth fund
    Invested in the world’s capital markets like the Alaska or Norwegian funds
    10% of this fund would build a fleet of nuclear reactors and a fleet of space based solar power satellites
    These would be built from lunar/asteroid materials

  8. Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
    0
    0

    you pretty much nailed my expectations though I am trying to think if he has ever mentioned or really shown any support for ARM.

  9. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    When Obama canceled any moon flights and said to work towards going to Mars, it would all be research and low costs. Nothing expensive would have to be built. Once you start cutting metal so to speak as Constellation was getting to, you start to need real money.

    • LPHartswick says:
      0
      0

      To paraphrase James Earl Jones, “if you build it you may have to go.” Most politicians are risk averse; and actual exploration scares the poop out of them because difficulties my alter their poll numbers. That is why we have three Saturn V’s sitting around rusting as “gate guards” at NASA Centers.

  10. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Well the pres told us that to push out into the solar system we need to fly Orion 🙁

  11. ed2291 says:
    0
    0

    Both democrats and republicans are equally and consistently at fault for lack of space progress. My strong recollection is exactly the same as Kieth’s memory who said, “When I was growing up in the mid-60s I seem to recall NASA talking about going to Mars by 1981. That was less than 20 years, Charlie. Indeed, NASA has been talking about going to Mars “in 20 years” or “within 15 years” for the past 40-50 years.”

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      I thought president made it pretty clear.
      If we want to go and settle space we have to do it ourselves

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      President Kennedy in a press confrence after he looked at the NERVA nuclear engine.

      “11.] Q. Mr. President, after your trip to Los Alamos Laboratory, New Mexico, is it your intention to ask for more money to speed up Project Rover, or for nuclear propulsion in space?

      THE PRESIDENT. We’re going to let these tests go on, of the reactor. These tests should be completed by July. If they are successful, then we will put more money into the program, which would involve the Nerva and Rift, both the engine and the regular machine. We will wait until July, however, to see if these tests are successful.

      It should be understood that the nuclear rocket, even under the most favorable circumstances, would not play a role in any first lunar landing. This will not come into play until 1970 or ’71. It would be useful for further trips to the moon or trips to Mars.

      But we have a good many areas competing for our available space dollars, and we have to try to channel it into those programs which will bring us a result, first, on our moon landing, and then to consider Mars.”

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        Note all of the qualifiers in Kennedy’s statements! On the surface, he sounds like he supports these technology development programs, but in reality he didn’t. The goal was landing a man on the moon, period.

        As the Kennedy/Webb tapes tell (I believe the audio files are on the Internet), privately Kennedy didn’t care one bit about space. It was a tool to show the superiority of the US over the Soviet Union to help stop the spread of communism around the globe.

        But, publicly, Kennedy knew he had to show great support and give lofty motivational speeches in order to maintain the relatively high level of funding NASA required in order to make Apollo/Saturn successful at landing a man on the moon. The unintended side effect of this was Congress and some of NASA management drinking that public facing Kool-aid. Unfortunately, many within NASA have never recovered from drinking the Kool-aid. They keep believing that all of NASA’s problems are because Congress and the Administration just won’t give them the money they “need” to carry out the vision.

        But, the vision was always false. Multi-billion dollar programs to create bigger launch vehicles and bigger disposable capsules only perpetuate the mistakes of Apollo/Saturn that NASA management never learned.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      “Both democrats and republicans are equally and consistently at fault”

      Can you even spell False Equivalency?

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Did you know the President gave shout to NASA for having man stay in space for year to study gravity effects. Didn’t the Russians learn that we need spaceships and space stations with gravity decades ago? Why hasn’t public space built any?

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        The only crewed flight that I am aware of with artificial gravity is the gemini XI flight in 1966:

        https://www.youtube.com/wat

        and a “reverse” version on Skylab “exercise wheel”:

        https://www.youtube.com/wat
        https://www.youtube.com/wat

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          NASA use to do cutting edge tech back then. Long long time ago

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Duplicate post. Product of the Department of Redundancy Department.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            People not in their 50s or older have not experienced what a wondrous exciting time the 1950s and 60s were in space.

            Think about Apollo! in a 4 year period 11 flights, of which 9 went to the MOON!

            It is a bitter experience to see us go NOWHERE since SkyLab in 1974.

            http://www.astronautix.com/

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            I think Spacex rockets will have us back on the moon before he gets to Mars. It is sad that current generations really have know idea at what is possible. NASAs Commercial Moon Infrastructure program should provide some of the profits Spacex uses for Musks Mars colony.

            NCMI program, the affordable way back to the moon. Lol

            Image if NASA was using SLS/Orion money to build lunar infrastructure/ highway. Obamas fuel depots etc, instead of dumping giant boosters in the ocean once every 4 years or so.

            NASA should have the NCMI program planned and ready for the next president.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            The point is that Apollo was unsustainable, so in the long term it is irrelevant. To be sustainable we need practical technology, sucha s was the goal of the virtually cancelled Space Technology Program and of course much of SpaceX R&D. SLS/Orion will have the same problem of excessive cost for limited return that resulted in the termination of Apollo. It will be terminated. The only question is when.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            There were directions that NASA could have gone. The frantic pace of Apollo could not sustain, but there were ways to create a lunar base evolving from what we were capable of doing. I always thought that Gemini- and Centaur- and MOL- and even dynasoar-derived technology, using vehicles much smaller than the Saturn V, had tremendous potential. Many exciting ideas reached various stages of design. I always thought Apollo was too specialized. Fabulous, but limited. But, the public interest faded and the heavy demands of the late ’60s and early ’70s sapped both resources and the will.
            But when the space shuttle became the path, all else died.

            https://www.google.com/url?…

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            The Saturn V was too expensive to keep in production. The Shuttle was driven down an excessively costly path by the requirements of DOD (which later dropped out). I agree we needed to investigate a range of launch vehicles. But in some ways that’s what’s happening now.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I never thought the Saturn V could survive. (I was at the last Saturn V launch – unbelievable!). That’s why I wrote: “…using vehicles much smaller than the Saturn V, had tremendous potential.”
            It is happening now, but we lost 40 years.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            The Shuttle was driven down an excessively costly path by the requirements of DOD (which later dropped out).

            No the Shuttle was always doomed to failure. Going from an expendable stack to a large manned spaceplane in a single step was always a bad idea. It’s actually shocking that they got it to work at all, let alone for over two decades, and is a testament to the experience won by the Apollo guys. It’s like asking a group of truck designers to develop a nuclear submarine, and they succeed!

          • david says:
            0
            0

            @Paul451, What a pessimistic hindsight, “…always doomed to fail?…” How do you measure success? And it was three decades not two in the operations phase, if you add in time since formulation phase start and final transition easily 50 years.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            How do you measure success?

            “Can I afford to both operate this and do things with it.”

            The Shuttle’s purpose was to lower the cost of access to space. It failed to achieve that.

            Part of the reason, IMO, is because they tried to develop it in one step. Apollo went through many steps; the German V2 weapons, US IRBM & ICBM program, the pre-Mercury launches, then Mercury, Gemini, then and only then Apollo. Around 25 years of constant iterative development of “stick” expendables.

            The Shuttle had nearly a decade of vague paper studies, then about 8 years of development. Very little of the prior “space plane” programs were used, and no stepping stones existed within the program itself. Even before the then NASA Director tried to get the USAF involved, there was no way the Shuttle was going to actually meet its goals of being a low-cost, rapid turn-around reusable launcher.

            Unfortunately that method of development came to dominate NASA.

          • david says:
            0
            0

            Agree on not being able to meet high usage low cost goals. I was not out of school in time to be in the strictly development phase, started working shuttle on STS-2 but some of the reasons were tradeoffs on up front development cost cuts at the expense of lower life cycle costs. Original design had liquid flyback reusable rocket booster rockets as opposed to SRBs for example.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            Original design had liquid flyback reusable rocket booster rockets as opposed to SRBs for example.

            However, that design would still have failed the deliver the intended goals.

            The issue isn’t a specific design, it’s that the designing was done by people who had never developed a space plane before.

            IMO, that’s the key. While the Apollo-era guys who worked on Shuttle development had more experience that anyone before or since, they had no experience needed to understand how to design (let alone develop) a large reusable space plane.

            That they got it to fly at all is, frankly, amazing. And a testament to the strength of that prior experience.

            By the start of Shuttle operations (about when you joined), you had a generation of engineers who had only worked on one system. So you were trained by “shuttle engineers”. They had been trained by guys with a decade of experience on multiple developments, who were trained by guys with experience on multiple systems, who… back to Goddard and co in the ’30s.

            Your generation went through your entire careers having never developed a new operational system. So the next generation of engineers (managers/etc) were two generations away from people who had developed a new working manned launcher; and two decades away from the previous launcher. And every generation, every decade, just kept getting worse.

            Outside of NewSpace, the current crop of devs/engineers/managers/etc (both at NASA and within primary contractors) lack that kind of experience. There hasn’t been a successfully developed manned launcher since 1981, and very few unmanned launchers, and only one new manned launcher since SatV was finalised in 1967 or so. The idea that the current workforce can even design, let alone develop, an Apollo-complexity system from essentially recycled Shuttle-parts is madness. Layers upon layers of madness.

            Note that none of this is to say that the people involved aren’t as smart or dedicated as the pre-Apollo guys. If anything, I’d say the work-force is probably smarter than it was. It’s just the lack of any opportunity to “learn your craft”.

            And it’s not about a single design, or about budget, or a particular destination or Congress or Administration. It’s about the assumptions of how “experience” works.

            “Go to the moon”, and you’ll have exactly the same problems as Constellation and SLS. “On to Mars”, even moreso. Stick stack, space plane, SSTO, TSTO, 3STO, reusable or expendable, doesn’t matter. All those debates miss the point. NASA and the primary contractors have less experience, real experience, today than the agency did when it was founded. More history, yes, but much much less experience.

          • LPHartswick says:
            0
            0

            The politicians sustain many thing that are unsustainable…the numbers don’t work for social security either, but I assure you it’s not going anywhere.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            The SocSec numbers aren’t too horrendous. If nothing changes then in 2037 the benefits will drop to 76% of pre-2037 indefinitely at that reduced percentage.
            That would hurt. There is, of course no chance that socsec would disappear. It is only the buffer fund that is decaying.
            If the social security tax was raised 2% then the current benefits would last indefinitely.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            Removing the payroll cap would have a bigger effect. (So large, you could probably drop the overall rate slightly and still have the fund solvent for a century.)

            But this is the same which most of these fake crises. “Every option must be put on the table!” except any which would actually work.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        The physiological changes seen in adapting to weightlessness have been studied for many years. Given a moderate level of exercise, no specific limit to tolerance of weightlessness has been identified. Kelly’s flight will not even break the endurance record (14 months).

  12. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    ta-da!

  13. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Kelly wouldn’t be riding Russian hardware if Congress hadn’t blocked his proposal to accelerate Commercial Crew. Congress also crushed the Space Technology Program, begun by the Obama Administration, which included orbital flight demonstrations of fuel depots that could have reduced the cost of BEO flight.

  14. ChuckM says:
    0
    0

    Let’s not get all negative folks. I am betting that SpaceX & partners will get us to the moon and Mars way before a POTUS and Congress give NASA any kind of help beyond LEO.

    Regarding politician comments of lunar & Mars exploration in 15-20 years. Any politico can say that because in the meantime they don’t have to fund it, and later they probably won’t be in office to give any support.

    • LPHartswick says:
      0
      0

      Wow you are an optimist. I admire your pluck, and wish you well, but i wouldn’t hold my breath.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        I have said this many times here. Elon (SpaceX&Partners) is/are our only hope.

        Mr. Hartswick He/They are the only ones who are REALLY trying, so you may as well root/ support them.

  15. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Is your goal to build a better future or just find someone to blame? If the space advocate community could arrive at a consensus and educate our own members of Congress to accept it, we might be part of the solution. As it is, what we think is of little consequence.

  16. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    I’m older than that and situation is similar but I continue to try.

  17. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    I think we need to see about Ms. Clinton. I will certainly actively support her if she gets the nod, but she can be a weak candidate. This is her big opportunity, but the party’s left has no love for her. We’ll see. Both parties may have a slugfest for their nominations (much less tho on the Dems side).