LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2

[cro-magnon gramps]

Quote

Chuck's right that no one cares about ISS videos.  What he's wrong about is that no one cares about the launch event, either.  The average American hasn't tuned in for a shuttle launch in twenty years, if ever.  I would wager that 99% of people who've seen a shuttle launch on TV recently saw it on a cable news channel and didn't even know it was going to happen that day.  Afterward they went back to their regularly scheduled programming and didn't think about it again.

Unquote

I would just like to make a little comment; most people don't know or couldn't care less, because the media networks don't care or cater to the Space NEWS, like they did in the 60's; why, well, I could think of a number of reasons, but the last one would be that people are NOT interested; if I hadn't been on this website and others, I wouldn't know from the TV or Paper Media that there were 3 astronauts in attendance at that meeting today; and I have had complaints from friends who I have told about what I have learnt here about what is going on with regards to space, that the News is not readily available other than on the Internet; Space has become a Niche market for spreading news, and it didn't have to; I believe that while there is Space Geekdom, there is still a solid majority that are interested, but not being served; not everyone is interested in trying to access the news from the web; if there were we would be innundated with people here and else where to the point that the web infrastructure would all be fibre optic from back bone to the PC;
     as well, Jon, it will be at least another generation before people get tired of seeing rockets with men lifting off;

[mmeijeri]

Old plan: HLV by 2020.
New plan: HLV by 2030.

Some of us consider that an improvement, even if Ares had delivered. And we may still have a 40-50mT HLV by 2020 if the DoD wants ACES as it might.

[clongton]

7th grade school kids[/b], not adults.
Bolden' remark was that he didn't want 7th graders thinking about Mars and that kids that age are not interested in the rockets. He's wrong! For kids that age it is literally *all about the rocket*.

It may now be about rovers or scientists - given kids I speak to.

They don't bring up the Shuttle. They do ask about launch/reentry/spaceflight ...

Times change.

The poster below says it all. Can you even picture the adventure going on in his head? Calculus will never grip him like that.

[vt_hokie]

With regard to general public opinion, I've spoken to people who mistakenly believe that commercial providers are closer to matching the capabilities that we're losing with STS than they in fact are.  I've run into folks who have bought into the Virgin Galactic hype, without understanding the difference between achieving orbit and flying a Mach 3 stunt plane.  Even my mom asked me recently how the Obama budget would affect the "New Mexico spaceport" that she had read about, and of course I had to explain what that really was. 

I think a lot of people could be fooled by a proposal that is more hype than substance, sadly without realizing what it is our nation is throwing away. 

[Chris Bergin]

Old plan: HLV by 2020.
New plan: HLV by 2030.

Some of us consider that an improvement, even if Ares had delivered. And we may still have a 40-50mT HLV by 2020 if the DoD wants ACES as it might.

I'd add to this that Ares V by 2020 was already not going to happen over a year ago. And Bolden at the KSC presser was citing sometime in the 2030s, so both worse unfortunately.

Now, if this plan gets refined, and I suspect it will be, HLV is going to be central to changes. If we get a push on HLV timelines, that'll appease some people.

I was going to write up some of the Senate comments into an article, but I'd have a real problem writing it up objectively, as after all, I do think shuttle extension and SD HLV is the way to go.....but that's not "news" and risks some opinion, which I really want to avoid in news articles. Forum, sure, but news content, nooooo.

So I'll write up some L2 memos already noting HLV work, another noting Commercial HR work and some of Mike's comments, which should be a nice balance and give you all some actual news

[dbhyslop]

The context of the post was 7th grade school kids, not adults.
Bolden' remark was that he didn't want 7th graders thinking about Mars and that kids that age are not interested in the rockets. He's wrong! For kids that age it is literally *all about the rocket*.

It's different with adults, about whom you are speaking. If I had been speaking about adults I would agree with your observation. But I wasn't. It's all about the kids and what does and doesn't interest them.

I'm not denying that kids love rockets.  I'm not an engineer like many people here, but it's my understanding that any plan under consideration to put astronauts in space, will in fact continue to utilize rockets.

I don't think that Bolden was trying to say that kids don't care about rockets.  I think he was saying that if we send people to Mars it will somehow involve rockets either way and the kids will probably be inspired regardless of the political details of who is issuing the pay stubs to the people designing and assembling the rocket.

My read of this situation is that he said it poorly and people are hyperbolizing it into something silly in order to mock it, because it's easier than making a thoughtful argument about what he was actually trying to say.

[vt_hokie]

I'm not denying that kids love rockets.  I'm not an engineer like many people here, but it's my understanding that any plan under consideration to put astronauts in space, will in fact continue to utilize rockets.

Expendable rockets and capsules....just as I feared when NASA gave up on RLV development with the justification that capsules would allow us to return to the moon.  Now, looks like we have the worst of both worlds - still stuck in Low Earth Orbit and regressing from reusable spaceplanes to expendable capsules.

[clongton]

The context of the post was 7th grade school kids, not adults.
Bolden' remark was that he didn't want 7th graders thinking about Mars and that kids that age are not interested in the rockets. He's wrong! For kids that age it is literally *all about the rocket*.

It's different with adults, about whom you are speaking. If I had been speaking about adults I would agree with your observation. But I wasn't. It's all about the kids and what does and doesn't interest them.

...<snip> I don't think that Bolden was trying to say that kids don't care about rockets.  I think he was saying that if we send people to Mars it will somehow involve rockets either way and the kids will probably be inspired regardless of the political details of who is issuing the pay stubs to the people designing and assembling the rocket <snip>....

Nice side-step
No, he *absolutely* was talking about 7th grade kids not caring about the rockets.
He said:

they don't care about the launch vehicles

He was talking about the kids and he said it in the context of what does and does not inspire kids. There is no mistaking what he said. It was so clearly stated that it's not even open to misinterpretation. You might want to "spin" it, the same way politicians spin an unpleasant truth, but that would be beneath you; and you're better than that.

Face it; he said a stupid thing.

[mmeijeri]

Now, looks like we have the worst of both worlds - still stuck in Low Earth Orbit and regressing from reusable spaceplanes to expendable capsules.

Dream Chaser would be a reusable spaceplane. Commercial launch vehicles and crew vehicles and a reusable spaceplane sound like the best of both worlds to me.

[svenge]

The context of the post was 7th grade school kids, not adults.
Bolden' remark was that he didn't want 7th graders thinking about Mars and that kids that age are not interested in the rockets. He's wrong! For kids that age it is literally *all about the rocket*.

It's different with adults, about whom you are speaking. If I had been speaking about adults I would agree with your observation. But I wasn't. It's all about the kids and what does and doesn't interest them.

...<snip> I don't think that Bolden was trying to say that kids don't care about rockets.  I think he was saying that if we send people to Mars it will somehow involve rockets either way and the kids will probably be inspired regardless of the political details of who is issuing the pay stubs to the people designing and assembling the rocket <snip>....

Nice side-step
No, he *absolutely* was talking about 7th grade kids not caring about the rockets. He said it in the context of what does and does not inspire kids. There is no mistaking what he said. It was so clearly stated that it's not even open to misinterpretation. You might want to "spin" it, the same way politicians spin an unpleasant truth, but that would be beneath you; and you're better than that.

Face it; he said a stupid thing.

In Bolden's defense, it's hard not to have verbal gaffes when Garver's arm is up your back... I'm definately loving the schadenfreude

[neilh]

Because we aren't right now, and we're not about to give up the only vehicle that allows us to be, right? Wow!

Old plan: retire the shuttle and have a gap while you are building one replacement vehicle. Fill said gap with Soyuz launches.

New plan: retire the shuttle and have a gap while you are building two or more replacement vehicles. Fill said gap with Soyuz launches. Oh no, the sky is falling!

Old plan: HLV by 2020.
New plan: HLV by 2030.

Actually, the Augustine Committee found that the old plan wouldn't have an HLV until the late 2020s, while the new plan is likely to have an HLV quite a bit sooner than that. Additionally, there's quite a bit of beyond-LEO exploration you can do without HLV, if you don't use an architecture which is explicitly biased to require use of a specific HLV design (cough, cough, ESAS).

[Halidon]

The context of the post was 7th grade school kids, not adults.
Bolden' remark was that he didn't want 7th graders thinking about Mars and that kids that age are not interested in the rockets. He's wrong! For kids that age it is literally *all about the rocket*.

It's different with adults, about whom you are speaking. If I had been speaking about adults I would agree with your observation. But I wasn't. It's all about the kids and what does and doesn't interest them.

I'm not denying that kids love rockets.  I'm not an engineer like many people here, but it's my understanding that any plan under consideration to put astronauts in space, will in fact continue to utilize rockets.

I don't think that Bolden was trying to say that kids don't care about rockets.  I think he was saying that if we send people to Mars it will somehow involve rockets either way and the kids will probably be inspired regardless of the political details of who is issuing the pay stubs to the people designing and assembling the rocket.

My read of this situation is that he said it poorly and people are hyperbolizing it into something silly in order to mock it, because it's easier than making a thoughtful argument about what he was actually trying to say.

Bingo

[vt_hokie]

Dream Chaser would be a reusable spaceplane. Commercial launch vehicles and crew vehicles and a reusable spaceplane sound like the best of both world to me.

I think the odds of DreamChaser becoming reality within the next decade are less than 50/50.  I'd love to see it, as it's the type of vehicle we should have had 10 years ago, but I'm not holding my breath.

[neilh]

they don't care about the launch vehicles

He was talking about the kids and he said it in the context of what does and does not inspire kids. There is no mistaking what he said. It was so clearly stated that it's not even open to misinterpretation. You might want to "spin" it, the same way politicians spin an unpleasant truth, but that would be beneath you; and you're better than that.

Face it; he said a stupid thing.

Were you listening to a different session? He was quite obviously talking about how kids won't care about what specific rocket an astronaut takes to get to LEO, sort of like how they don't even know how many US astronauts ride a Soyuz to the Space Station now.

[robertross]

Anyone else spot Jeff Bingham behind Vitter ?

Aww...you spoiled the show for me  ...lol

I'll have to check when I watch it tomorrow (important hockey game on) 

Way to go Jeff! 

[robertross]

Question about CxP, brilliantly turned around to be about shuttle by Mike:

"Even if we continued the POR, we are still looking at a significant mistake of shuting down the shuttle before we need to.

"We need redundant access, as soon as we stand down the fleet, we turn over to a monopoly with the Russians.

"The shuttle is the most capable vehicle we have, I challenge anyone who says it's unsafe. Clearly they do not know what we do to keep the fleet safe, day in day out.

"For the sake of the ISS, all that money we have spent, we can't just walk away from it. If you look at the ISS during RTF, we went to two crew, mainly maintainence. Today that station has five or six onboad. The HTV ATVs are in support of shuttle. If we take shuttle out of the loop, I don't know how everything is going to be fine.

"It does not make sense to retire shuttle, especially before commercial is online."

Amazing, want to get all of that comment on quote, was brilliant, the above is just some soundbytes.

Great job Mike!! 

Really glad to see you putting some truth & common sense out there!

[robertross]

Well I haven't watched it yet, but I've gone through all the posts.

It seems reasonable that Holdren is pushing much of this, along with Garver.
Bolden seems like he's doing a fine job as the soldier that he is, with a bit of emotion thrown in.

I've said it before, and people discounted it. They need more money, and they way this (budget) was presented, it was to get congress to come out with some additional money.

I'm more hopeful now that

A) A HLV will get funding sooner, rather than later
B) A shuttle extension will come into play to save jobs, preserve infrastructure & skill base, be less reliant on Soyuz for US crew to space, and ISS support.

It's also great to finally see Mars announced, even if it was in a round-about way. I'm still thinking 2030-2035. At least Bolden was 100% honest about the realities of the situation on this: timeframe hard to nail down based on current technologies & future development. The problem is that they are reliant on future technologies & funding to develop all they are promising, and there are no guarantees.

[KSC Engineer]

 What I find fascinating about this entire ordeal is that it is one of the only issues on The Hill today that both sides of the isle agree on for the most part.  In other words all of the energy was from one team (Congress) being directed on others.  I enjoying seeing WDC in agreement for once.  Granted its a small room of congressmen and women but they are on one team which is rare these days.   

[MP99]

Mike was frakking outstanding!!

Yeah, I think there'll be a few guys raising a beer to his testimony.

Martin

[dbhyslop]

That's incorrect. Most of our new members are people drawn in by the Q&A section and most of the questions from new members relate to basic questions that have been provoked by their opening experience of seeing a shuttle launch on TV etc.

"A lot of us" would be more accurate, not "All of us".

It certainly was an exaggeration, but milder than many in this thread and others.

And most people don't care about our troops overseas. Most people care about what long haired fool is getting praise from Simon Cowell on American Idol. So it's a bit of a moot point, as that's a problem with the people, not the space program.

I agree with the sentiment, but if we want our space program to succeed it needs to make itself relevant to the culture.  If we stick our fingers in our ears and say "that's a problem with the people not us" then our programs will get canceled.  End of story.

To make people interested there needs to be novelty involved.  Manned spaceflight can't be the same mission over and over again.

This phenomenon isn't unique to today, this was also true 40 years ago.  I'm always hearing people here talk about how things need to be like Apollo again.  Apollo had public support because it was relevant to society's desires at the time.  People weren't different in those days and so after a handful of landings the novelty wore off, we'd beat the Russians and it was no longer relevant to people.  The program was canceled.  This isn't what we want to model our future after.

When Bush announced the VSE there wasn't any relevance at all.  It never had all that much public interest.  Even if O'Brien was a shill up there today he sure nailed that.  If the program had no technical issues and made it to successful landings it still would be canceled when people lost interest.

You can agree or disagree about the priorities of the American people.  But the fact of the matter is if you want continuing human spaceflight, you need to find a way to engage them.  Right or wrong, it's a fact.

Even if you had a national pride goal of sorties or outpost on Mars people would get bored after a few years, and the price tag would be too high next to public indifference.

Honestly, looking at this I'm coming to believe that Flexible Path is the only way to have a vibrant spaceflight future.  Take some people off the street, describe to them a series of manned missions that include trips to asteroids, moons of Mars, flyby of Venus; they could get really into it.  The destinations are always new and interesting and will keep public support for much longer.  Eventually you run out of things to do, but the game plan is that during the whole time you were doing the tech demonstrations and investing in the commercial sector so that Lunar or Martian outposts are inexpensive enough to survive public indifference the way Antarctic ones do.

Maybe thirty years from now, when no one watches the fourth Mars landing, hopefully there will be an economic incentive for a commercial firm to run the colony and NASA can start planning the missions to the Galilean moons to keep the public's attention.

Apollo succeeded in landing people on the moon, but that wasn't enough to keep public support for the program.  Yet for the last 40 years we've been trying to emulate this approach over and over and failing and failing.  We need a seachange.