Author Topic: In a change of attitude, NASA appears to embrace private rockets  (Read 33014 times)

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
One question to ask is where the rocket design specs that Congress wrote into law came from...

Well, now that you mention it, that seems a very intriguing possibility.  Given the ease with which the 2010 NASA Authorization cleared Congress, I would have to think that he and Constellation's other supporters regarded it as a pretty good consolation prize.  If this is actually what happened, I'd say the General demonstrated some sharp political smarts, even if it wasn't quite following the chain of command.
It wasn't quite that easy -- it required a 2/3rds vote in the House in that situation.  If you look at the threads here following the considerable arm-twisting of House members, there were still people like Representative Giffords who were advocating to keep Constellation.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
One question to ask is where the rocket design specs that Congress wrote into law came from...

Well, now that you mention it, that seems a very intriguing possibility.  Given the ease with which the 2010 NASA Authorization cleared Congress, I would have to think that he and Constellation's other supporters regarded it as a pretty good consolation prize.  If this is actually what happened, I'd say the General demonstrated some sharp political smarts, even if it wasn't quite following the chain of command.

Aren't most bills like this with technical content written by lobbyists?  I'd assume that is what Boeing, LM, ATK etc. pay their lobbyists to do. 
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
But here's the more general point: don't think of "Congress" as if it is a point source with a single set of views and opinions and values and interests. It's a conglomeration of all of those things, to different amounts. There are SLS supporters in Congress who don't benefit at all from the pork. There are SLS "supporters" who actually don't care all that much about the issue, but have a gut instinct that it's the right approach and other approaches are wrong. And there are supporters of SLS who both benefit from it AND believe in it. Don't make the mistaken assumption that it's all cynical self-interest and hypocrisy and they actually secretly agree with your logic but are only voting the other way because of CASH$$$. Nope, you can benefit from something and truly believe in it at the same time.

I don't want to get into the specifics of what happened with the FY11 budget.  My suspicion is that someday, someone will write a book, and the data will prove VERY interesting. 

However, to the general point - I very much agree, Congressman and Senators have a host of reasons for why or why not they support a particular program, whether it's SLS or commercial crew, or JWST, or whatever.  Some are true believers, some are a combination of circumstance, some do because of constituent interest.

The problem is that we are fundamentally arguing over the wrong things, and so is congress, by extension.  Moon vs Mars vs Asteroid - what does that matter?  The reason to pick moon or mars, SLS or not, etc... needs to be based on fundamental reasons - why does NASA exist?  What do we hope to gain from spaceflight?  And so forth.  And we don't really get into this debate too often it seems.

I'll give 3 examples of fundamental reasons, that could be fundamental justifications of why we have NASA. 

1.  The Chinese are going to be our next adversary, and anyone who doesn't understand this is short-sighted or worse.  Therefore, we need a national mobilization to oppose them, and that includes space.  Clearly, they are going to the moon, and they are proposing to do it in some sort of Apollo style, so we need to recreate Apollo. 

2.   NASA's culture is fundamentally needed to do anything in space - they assemble the smartest and best and most capable people.  The preservation of that culture is so important that we really don't want to inject any major changes quickly into it.  We need to protect the culture because without protecting that culture, we will lose our ability to do anything with space.

3.  The resources of space are so great that they can help solve many problems here on earth.  Therefore, we need to consider how to position our activities in space as to enable gaining access to those resources, and if what we are doing doesn't help that, there is no reason to continue that activity, even if it results in hurting people.

All 3 of those are IMHO, fundamental reasons for why we might do what we do with regards to space and NASA, but this isn't the debate we have frequently.  And yes - this is a problem arguably with US Democracy, which I grant and don't have a solution.  But I keep coming back to this discussion of fundamental reasons because that is the only way we'll really build support for space going forward - getting fundamental reasons everyone can agree with
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
The problem is that we are fundamentally arguing over the wrong things, and so is congress, by extension.  Moon vs Mars vs Asteroid - what does that matter?  The reason to pick moon or mars, SLS or not, etc... needs to be based on fundamental reasons - why does NASA exist?  What do we hope to gain from spaceflight?  And so forth.  And we don't really get into this debate too often it seems.

Well said.

The way I like to describe it is that NASA is a tool that the U.S. Government uses to solve national problems with solutions that involve the peaceful use of space.

So before you can define a solution, you have to know what the problem is.

Apollo was one of many attempts being made for winning the Cold War, which by default also included the Space Race since rockets could be used for both peaceful and non-peaceful purposes.  It achieved it's announced goal, but whether it helped to win the Cold War is not clear.

I think picking a destination is the wrong approach, unless there is something specific at that destination that is a "National Imperative" to own.  The better approach, if we want the private sector to be contributing to the peaceful use of space, is to have a more general goal with recognized intermediate goals.

For instance, the U.S. Government could state that our goal in space is to expand our economic sphere of influence out into space (general and open-ended), with the first goal being a reusable transportation system to the region of the Moon (specific and near-term).  Then they should create public/private partnerships and government/government partnerships to make that first goal happen.  Rinse and repeat as the near-term goal is closer to being achieved.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 2116
The problem is that we are fundamentally arguing over the wrong things, and so is congress, by extension.  Moon vs Mars vs Asteroid - what does that matter?  The reason to pick moon or mars, SLS or not, etc... needs to be based on fundamental reasons - why does NASA exist?  What do we hope to gain from spaceflight?  And so forth.  And we don't really get into this debate too often it seems.

Well said.

The way I like to describe it is that NASA is a tool that the U.S. Government uses to solve national problems with solutions that involve the peaceful use of space.

So before you can define a solution, you have to know what the problem is.

There are many scientific problems that NASA solves per this definition:
- weather forecasting
- climate and earth resource monitoring
- fundamental research in physics, through the astrophysics program
- etc...

However, most do not require manned spaceflight, which the central point to the SLS/Orion/manned exploration debate. There are other kinds of problems that were solved by manned spaceflight, namely "how to show the USA are more powerful than the USSR?", which resulted in Apollo, and "how to keep Russian rocket engineers busy so that they don't start spreading ICBM technology around?", which resulted in the ISS. These are not technical problems, but political ones. The issue with Orion and SLS is that they don't directly solve a scientific problem, and not a political one either.

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
The problem is that we are fundamentally arguing over the wrong things, and so is congress, by extension.  Moon vs Mars vs Asteroid - what does that matter?  The reason to pick moon or mars, SLS or not, etc... needs to be based on fundamental reasons - why does NASA exist?  What do we hope to gain from spaceflight?  And so forth.  And we don't really get into this debate too often it seems.

Well said.

The way I like to describe it is that NASA is a tool that the U.S. Government uses to solve national problems with solutions that involve the peaceful use of space.

So before you can define a solution, you have to know what the problem is.

There are many scientific problems that NASA solves per this definition:
- weather forecasting
- climate and earth resource monitoring
- fundamental research in physics, through the astrophysics program
- etc...

However, most do not require manned spaceflight, which the central point to the SLS/Orion/manned exploration debate. There are other kinds of problems that were solved by manned spaceflight, namely "how to show the USA are more powerful than the USSR?", which resulted in Apollo, and "how to keep Russian rocket engineers busy so that they don't start spreading ICBM technology around?", which resulted in the ISS. These are not technical problems, but political ones. The issue with Orion and SLS is that they don't directly solve a scientific problem, and not a political one either.

This is why I am making the point about fundamental purpose and reasons.  Saying "scientific reason" or "political reasons" is too vague.  You have to get the actual reason articulated. 

Of the 3 reasons I cited, SLS/Orion is really justified by 2 of those reasons.  You can argue about whether those reasons are good or bad, which is what we should be doing (and thus my original point), but that really isn't what we do.  We tend to skip over the fundamental reasons debate, and get to the "does destination/program X make sense or not." but don't have an agreed metric as to whether and why it makes sense. 
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Lar & Coastal Ron:  I though technology development was a big part of what NACA did.

NACA was created to "...supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight with a view to their practical solution".  Advisory to start, but research and development was eventually added.  It started out simple but was expanded as it's value was recognized.

I would hope NASA of the near future could be more NACA-like in helping our aerospace industries to come up with practical solutions that allow humanity to expand out into space.  NASA has shown it's value in being the "pointy tip of the spear" regarding space exploration, and I think there is still value for them to do that, but one would hope they would do it in concert with the private sector.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
I agree that the Obama administration's moves on space early on were very clumsy, even for a new administration.  But when I put myself in Obama's shoes, the FY 2011 proposal doesn't seem crazy to me.

You're only paying attention to the cancellation part, not the "what we're going to do next" part, which was pretty awful because there was no policy justification for it.

Just off the top of my head the blunders in early 2010 were:

-cancelling major programs without providing a sound justification for it
-failing to produce a White House white paper/policy document that explained what they were trying to do
-explaining what the post-Constellation goal was
-briefing Congress before they released the budget and briefed the press (they made a lot of enemies they did not have to)
-failing to understand that any rapid increase in any budget (such as the big R&D increase in the FY2011 budget) always gets a skeptical eye in Congress
-scrambling after all the controversy to come up with a new goal, which led to Obama going to KSC and saying "It's asteroids."

Lots of blundering there. Talk to people on Capitol Hill at the time and they will tell you that the administration did one of the worst roll outs of a new policy that they had ever seen. That kind of fumbling led many on the Hill to decide that the White House did not know what it was doing in space policy. And if the White House didn't know what they were doing, Congress figured, they (Congress) would take over the reins. That led to greater micromanagement and infighting. There's this common misconception that the only thing that mattered to the Congress was pork. But they also had this impression that the White House did not know what it was doing regarding space policy, so Congress was going to start dictating the decisions.

A good summary, IMO Blackstar.  I thought cancelling (or a major revision of) CxP was needed given how it was going and that sufficient additional funding never got secured, so President Obama wasn't incorrect there.   But something (well defined) then needs to be put in it's place.  Just as STS replaced Apollo, and CxP was to replace STS, there needed to be a a clear replacement program.  At the time, President Obama's party controlled both the House and Senate, so a good, feasible replacement plan was pretty likely to get passed I think.  And there were some good options available.  'Direct' for one (also it was politically attractive with the least disruption in the existing STS infrastructure).  Or an evolved EELV system for commonality with USAF/DoD launchers.

As it was, even his own party turned on him, and we got the NAA2010 passed by large bipartisan margins in both Houses, which became SLS.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
An exploration program using both SLS and commercial rockets is something I have hoped would happen for a while. I am really glad to hear Gerst endorsing it (his comments about a cis-lunar outpost were also very promising).

It makes the most sense from both a logistical and a political perspective. Logistically since SLS can only launch 1-2 times a year more capability is needed to launch cargo. FH can place a Destiny sized module in DRO as well as a Cygnus or a Dragon.

Politically both OldSpace and NewSpace have their supporters in the political arena. Trying to do it all the NewSpace way or the OldSpace way will lead to damaging political fights. A compromise proposal like this preserves the most support for space exploration.

What may end up happening is SLS will handle really large cargo (say BA-330 or a lunar lander) and crew (with co-manifested payloads) while FH and other commercial rockets handle cargo resupply and the smaller modules, with BLEO commercial crew on the horizon.

With a couple of differences this a repeat of what is going on with LEO right now. NASA builds the outpost, initially crews it with a NASA owned spacecraft, contracts for commercial cargo, and finally contracts for commercial crew. What's not to like?

In the space lecture I give to my students each semester I always include a slide with Nathan's (okan170) excellent render of FH on 39A and SLS on 39B with the caption of "Tag Team?" Looks like I can take the question mark out soon.  :D

IMO, the issue with this is you have a HLV that has all of it's own unique support infrastructure and facilities, but only launches occasionally.  Seems to me it would be better to either find a way to use it -more-, or cancel it and use something else more.  Let of the forces of economics and mass production help out.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a way to get enough launches out of SLS to get those forces much in your favor.  (although I could be wrong there?).  So I think using F9 and FH would be my NASA HSF direction of choice as of right now...or possibly Vulcan...were it up to me.  For servicing the ISS, and for HSF if there's a new Lunar program.  In-space refueling would likely be needed, but those aren't likely to be too big of a problem. 
Something more would be needed to go to Mars, but SpaceX -is- developing that something more now.  And it's a combination launcher/spacecraft/lander/Hab all in one.  NASA could partner with them in that and get US Astronauts on the early missions on it.


Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Three existing military rockets served NASA's manned space program just fine in the beginning.
<snip>

We don't need to recount the tortured history of SLS. What is germane is that new classes of HLV and SHLV are either at hand or about to go into development. These are quite capable of EOR assembly for a lunar architecture in the near future. Those capable of Mars architectures are not as certain, but look to be quite viable. Falcon wasn't originally intended for reuse, but its design fortuitously allowed it and proved the concept. The reusability factor alone is enough to begin thinking of closing out most existing launch systems in favor of new LVs designed for reuse from the get/go. Throwing good money after bad for an obsolete technology is silly. Even the cadre of senators who have championed SLS have to acknowledge that at some point.

Not only will new commercial launchers be partially or fully reusable, they free NASA from the burden of building launchers that fly for around 10 minutes and allow them instead to focus on what to do once astronauts are IN space. Having a super launcher but no money for a mission, as has been said here for a long time, is absurd. Dumping SLS-Orion is not going to cost any time in the long run. It was only going to fly 4 times in the next 10 years and would be in need of new engines, boosters, SM, tower mods, habs, landers, rovers, etc., et al. Letting go and embracing new technology that is far more efficient and affordable is the only prudent option. Of course politicians are not always (or even often) prudent, but from the POV of economics and technology, it really is the only viable path forward.

From one viewpoint, it means moving forward to new technology, but from another it is simply coming full circle and using launchers that NASA simply buys (or buys services) rather than builds. NASA HSF, freed of senate micromanagement, given a JPL like autonomy, with funds left over for missions could give us the same excitement as those heady early days.

Agreed Tom.
As you said, the difference is now there's new commercial launchers in development with potential to meet NASA HSF needs  (perhaps not "wants", but "needs").  And the costs of those launchers will be shared by all of their other launch customers, not just NASA.  Which isn't the case for NASA operated launchers.

The politics are difficult of going to private launchers for NASA because after decades of NASA operating a launcher, it just seems like it should always be so.  But NASA operated on shared launchers for their first two programs, and really could have post-Apollo LEO era too with evolving Titan III., instead of STS.  (Just as the Russians did)

The Jobs issue in congressional districts is problematic, but you counter that with the cases that keeping SLS just for the sake of make-work jobs for an unsustainable system, is government waste.  The public likes NASA, but they don't like examples of government make-work.  So pressure could be applied there I think.  Plus the public has a pretty good view of Musk these days, so the case for NASA flying on private rockets rather than their own probably won't get a bad reception where it once may have.  Not to mention NASA astronauts will be flying on private spacecraft and rockets here soon to the ISS.  The US's "return to launch operations" will be with private rockets and spaceships. 

So quietly cancelling SLS may not get as much blow back as it did in 2010 with the cancellation of CxP.  Especially since there will be such a visible new plan with US Astronauts currently flying on existing hardware.  It's hard to argue too hard against private launchers being up to the task, when they are already doing it.


Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
But I keep coming back to this discussion of fundamental reasons because that is the only way we'll really build support for space going forward - getting fundamental reasons everyone can agree with

For me, this is the core.

We do need some combined force of voices. Now it seems that there is much too much fighting for a larger piece of the pie when we really need a bigger pie.

We can do more. We need to do more. Combined voices might be able to sway the budget makers that more is good. Since Apollo, more (as in budget) has seemed to become a bad word.


Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
But I keep coming back to this discussion of fundamental reasons because that is the only way we'll really build support for space going forward - getting fundamental reasons everyone can agree with

For me, this is the core.

We do need some combined force of voices. Now it seems that there is much too much fighting for a larger piece of the pie when we really need a bigger pie.

We can do more. We need to do more. Combined voices might be able to sway the budget makers that more is good. Since Apollo, more (as in budget) has seemed to become a bad word.

Again,  the problem is core justifications.  We've NEVER had a solid, big picture, easily understandable justification for this.  We have various items, in a combined "list" of things like inspiration, science, geo-political, etc. 

The problem is that these broad statements are very hard to quantify a value to the non-space world.  There is a reason the military budget is always high - it's easy to say "we need to spend money to keep our country safe, from people who will attack/kill you".   Most citizens understand that at a very core level.  There are other departments that have a similar simple message "we are spending money so your town water doesn't make you throw up" "we are spending money to fight drug dealers because they'll ruin your kids life."  And so on.

Now, again, the problem is we've NEVER come up with this kind of argument.  Want proof of that?  In the 1960s, most 45-60% of the populace thought we were spending too much money on space.  There were marches protesting moon launches in place of poverty - "Your belly isn't full, but your government spending billions to send people to pick up rocks on the moon.  Is that fair?"

And because we don't have a clear reason, because everyone has their own reasons, and the technical/legal/economic situation that results based on those reasons results in long arguments about destinations, and vehicles, and so forth.  "How much do we have to protect the contractors?" and "How important is the civil service work force?" and "How important is the development of technology?" all get answered when you have a core reason, and force you down a particular technical/destination path.

I would also add (although I don't have 100% proof of this ) that I suspect that part of our problem is that NONE of our arguments require space activity.  Are there other ways we can flex our geo-political muscles that don't require Space?  Yes.  Are they ways we can inspire people that don't require Space?  Yes.  Science is a little different - it is true that if you care about the science of space, you need space.  However, this is why we have the classic human vs robotic divide that never really dies. 

So we are back to my core point - we have the budget we have, because our reasons are lacking.  And that is not going to change until we can find more, and better justifications, that reach more people. 
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
I really can't imagine this Truce lasting long not with people like Newt Gingrich hectoring for new space from the sidelines. Especially if someone like him gets the big job at NASA replacing Bolden.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/nasa-spaceflight-chief-says-he-loves-all-of-the-rockets/

The archived video of the conference (the AAS Goddard Symposium) where Gerst said this is now online:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/100752759

The slides of Gerst's presentation are attached to this post. The presentation is only 12 minutes and is worth watching.

See also these related links for other material from this symposium:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nasa-gsfc-science-and-exploration
http://astronautical.org/dev/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Goddard-Program-for-Website-Final-with-PP.pdf
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/842802939735564289
« Last Edit: 03/18/2017 03:32 am by yg1968 »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Bottom line (near the bottom anyway at 01:20:55):
Quote
NASA doesn't need to do everything any more -- those days are gone.
-- Gerst
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
But here's the more general point: don't think of "Congress" as if it is a point source with a single set of views and opinions and values and interests.

Let me start with the general points, and those in reverse order.  As to "don't think of Congress as a point source...," of course, you are correct.  I was inaccurate in using the word "Congress" when I was actually thinking principally of the key players on the space subcommittees: the Steven Palazzos, the Mo Brookses, the Bill Nelsons, the Kay Bailey Hutchisons, the Rex Halls, the Ted Cruzes, the Bill Poseys, and so on.  In the interest of precision, let me refer to the people I have in mind with terms such as "space-interested Congresspeople."  I'm sure that within Congress there is full spectrum of views on NASA, and even among those who are broadly supportive (most, I would think), reasons for supporting NASA's programs range from the belief that they really do represent the very best in space policy all the way over pure porkishness.

Quote
Here's general point #1: Welcome to democracy. This is how it works.

I agree that democracy is messy and sometimes ugly, but I'm not bashing it: I firmly believe it is better than all of the alternatives.  I'm merely making the very narrow point that, in this case, the results of the democratic process, on this extremely unimportant issue, are readily explained if the key players (space-interested Congresspeople) are motivated principally by pork.  It seems to me that it's stretch to explain the results by assuming the key players are motivated principally by the desire for an effective space policy.

Each element of my "rant" (obviously my attempt at self-deprecating humor has fallen flat) is intended as a data point on which to test hypotheses.  So, to be now more specific....

Quote
1-The reason they "wrote rocket specs into law" was because they had become convinced that unless they did that, the White House would ignore them. They felt they had to be very specific in everything.

What people outside of DC space policy circles don't get is just how much damage Obama did when he rolled out that FY2011 NASA budget in February 2010. Members of Congress felt both blindsided and disrespected. Even members of his own party were angry. The NASA Authorization Act was signed in October 2010, after about 6+ months of members of Congress getting very annoyed with the White House (and NASA by extension) and believing that the people in the executive branch were not interested in listening or negotiating but only in dictating. They concluded that unless they wrote down exactly what they wanted, it would not get implemented.

And what was it, exactly, that they wanted?  Was a return to the moon, or a trip to an asteroid?  Footprints on Mars?  No, exactly what they wanted was a Shuttle-derived rocket.  QED.

Quote
2-* Why has Congress spent over $20 billion on Orion and SLS before even beginning to seriously ask what to do with the them?

They did tell NASA what to do with them: Moon exploration was in the 2005 Act and repeated in the 2010 Act. It has been supplanted by Mars exploration. It's right there:

"FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1)  The  extension  of  the  human  presence  from  low-Earth orbit  to  other  regions  of  space  beyond  low-Earth  orbit  will enable  missions  to  the  surface  of  the  Moon  and  missions  to deep space destinations such as near-Earth asteroids and Mars."

That's a Christmas wish list, an undated, uncosted, unprioritized long-range grab-bag of just about everything NASA might conceivably do with people in space in the 21st century.  It is significant in that it envisions NASA, not some other part of government or private enterprise, doing those things, but beyond that just about anything goes.  More to the point, Congress itself is ignoring it:  according to the NRC study commissioned by Congress itself, NASA's current programs on the budgets Congress is willing to provide is not on track to execute any of those deep-space missions.


Quote
3-"made steady progress in developing and testing..."

Because it has. Yeah, it might be behind schedule and over-budget, but that does not mean that it is not progressing, just that it is not progressing by the original schedule. Hardware is being built and tested and shipped. Go look at the press releases. Don't let hatred of SLS blind you to what is actually happening, even if you don't like it or think that there is a better solution.

Please, I am not blind to the technical progress Orion and SLS have made.  I have no doubt that the NASA-industry team building those systems is competent and can bring them to flight, and I have stated that multiple times in this forum.  But for Congress to mention "progress" without mentioning the delays and billions in overruns is a bit like asking Ms. Lincoln how, other things aside, she liked the play.  Congress has been known to demand people's heads for less.  The attitude displayed here is that Congress is perfectly happy to throw money at the program, without demanding much in return.  Again, that's consistent with the rocket and capsule programs themselves being the main goal, with actual human exploration being an afterthought.  If they were serious about exploration, they'd be pounding the table demanding to know why timetables and budgets have slipped so much.  They do that lot; that they don't do it here is a case of the dog that doesn't bark.

EDIT:  "Kaye" -> "Kay"
« Last Edit: 03/22/2017 09:16 am by Proponent »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
in this case, the results of the democratic process, on this extremely unimportant issue, are readily explained if the key players (space-interested Congresspeople) are motivated principally by pork. 

By the logic you are employing, your entire rant can be explained if one assumes that you hate SLS.

Reductio ad absurdum is a poor strategy for trying to understand why things turn out the way they do in a complex democratic process.


Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
I hate to sound snarky but.. Shuttle-C/Sidemount SDLV-: we'd be there by now.

Ares I, got its single flight, and I suspect SLS will get at least one, and that will probably be the last whimper of the Constellation era. If congress had focused entirely on MSFC building a lander and possibly a BEO habitat, left the LV question well enough alone for some future date, just in case there was a commercial heavy lift vehicle by then, the worst that could have happened would have been that NASA would have had to derive some sort of multiple EELV program and get whatever utility they could have out of said habitat or lander. The long lead item would just be, as ever, Orion. And if there happened to be a couple of heavy lift commercial vehicles having metal bent by then, all the better.

But that did not happen and it was never going to. Too many experts and a couple of moonwalkers were called in to testify the need to do things the Mike Griffin way. Congress was sold on Constellation, did did not like having the table cloth yanked out from under the dishes in 2011, and its hard to blame them, from their viewpoint.

The biggest symbol of all that work was Ares V. The Yet-Another-Committee Committee determined that they did indeed need a Big Rocket, and that's what they got, sort of, years later, almost. So they'll get their launch out of it, it will look good, better than poor, goofy Ares 1X, and about as useful, unless budgets dramatically change. That will be the end of it, most likely. Time has moved on and surpassed what the old model could deliver. It's a pity that better steps weren't taken but I don't know that things could have happened any way other than how that did. It's not about being pro-SLS or hating it.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2017 03:19 pm by bad_astra »
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
in this case, the results of the democratic process, on this extremely unimportant issue, are readily explained if the key players (space-interested Congresspeople) are motivated principally by pork. 

By the logic you are employing, your entire rant can be explained if one assumes that you hate SLS.

Reductio ad absurdum is a poor strategy for trying to understand why things turn out the way they do in a complex democratic process.

I have presented facts and have offered a hypothesis consistent with them.  To put it in a nutshell, Congress continues to spend fund a program which, according to the experts it chose itself (the NRC, not to mention Augustine) will not achieve the exploration goals it claims to be interested in.  What's your explanation for why Congress does that?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
I have presented facts and have offered a hypothesis consistent with them.  To put it in a nutshell, Congress continues to spend fund a program which, according to the experts it chose itself (the NRC, not to mention Augustine) will not achieve the exploration goals it claims to be interested in.  What's your explanation for why Congress does that?

Let's assume that your conclusion is correct and that "Congress" (which you are using to refer to a select subsection of Congress) funds these programs "primarily because of pork."

So what?

What are you going to do with that information? What is the value of that conclusion?

I'd also add that this would not make space any different than any other thing that is funded by the federal government. I'm sure that we would all be shocked--just shocked!--to discover that the biggest proponents of farm subsidies come from farm states. And the biggest proponents of building submarines come from states where submarines are built. And the biggest proponents of allowing oil drilling on federal lands tend to come from states where oil drilling is a major enterprise.

There is a remarkable correlation between incidents of gambling and casinos...

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
This is why Congress will never allow the President to line item veto.  None of these programs could stand up to a super-majority vote... most wouldn't achieve a plurality if voted on the record, one at a time.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1