Author Topic: In a change of attitude, NASA appears to embrace private rockets  (Read 33005 times)

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Unless there is a specific and long-term need, the U.S. Government should not have a need to own space transportation systems, and should instead focus on the activities at the end points of transportation systems.

Would you rule out a role for government in develop transportation technology?

The previous administration tried to direct budget towards technology development, but was rebuffed by Congress.  I think that is at least in part, NASA's role, but they seem to have given it over to the private sector more than LEO.  NASA should possibly fund, at a partnership level, those leading edge technology efforts instead of trying to 'catch up' with the private sector.

One thing the USG should lead in is science... as far as exploration is motivated by science, they should lead exploration.  The search for life and its origins is classical science.  So is, what are the ingredients for a habitable planet...
« Last Edit: 03/14/2017 09:40 am by AncientU »
"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
The only time I met Gen. Bolden was shortly after the "Muslim outreach" comments.  Up close he comes across as very personable and likeable.  I always wondered how he was prepped for his trip to the middle east.  I suspect the State Department gave him some talking points that they thought would go over well where he was.  Comments by people in his position don't say isolated to the intended audience.  Better thought needs to go into what gets said practically anywhere because of who will eventually hear them.

Yes, he was probably given some talking points. But he had a bad habit of forgetting what he was supposed to say and I think that's what happened when he gave that interview. It's a real shame too, because that's not that hard a message to convey. He could have said "The United States has many allies in the Muslim world. I'm here to reach out to them and make connections and talk about possible ways that we can cooperate in exploring the solar system and studying the universe." Easy. NASA has a great brand, particularly overseas. All he had to do was put a little spin on that brand and he'd win. Instead, he flubbed it and for years later whenever an article about NASA appeared on some conservative website you inevitably saw dipshits making comments about NASA being a "Muslim outreach agency."

If you watched him in public talks later on he often pulled out his notecards and read from them. Every talk he gave then somehow became tied to the human spaceflight program. Heck, I ran a meeting around 2012 or so that included a lot of top aeronautics (i.e. airplanes) experts. Bolden gave a talk and started discussing the great human spaceflight program. Nobody cared--they wanted to discuss airplanes--but that was his default position. Eventually, around 2015 or so, somebody came up with the "#JourneytoMars" and not only did NASA start putting that in every single press release, but Bolden started mentioning it in all of his talks, even when he was talking about flying New Horizons past Pluto. It was on the notecards, so he read it. But he needed the notecards because without them he would say things that got him into trouble.

Bolden strikes me as an intelligent and decent person, who was miscast as NASA administrator.  The thing that really puzzles me is how someone who has a tough time staying on message and wears his emotions on his sleeve ever became a Marine Corps general.  That in turn makes me wonder, in my more skeptical moods, whether he was not at times dissembling.  Perhaps he was actually rather more focused than he liked to let on but found a softer public persona useful.  When my skepticism deepens to cynicism, I wonder further, given his long and deep experience with the Shuttle, whether he might have been an agent of the Shuttle ecosystem, never on board with the administration's FY 2011 plan for NASA to begin with.  Maybe he did not want FY 2011 rolled out well.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
The JPL analogy is not true.  Congress still dicks with them.

Although right now some parts of JPL are pretty happy with that, in that Congress has short-circuited the usual process in support of Europa Clipper.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
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.

I would dearly like to believe, and once did, that Congress's dominant motivation in HSF is not pork.  But consider the following questions relating to human spaceflight policy in the last several years:

* Why does the 2010 Act write rocket specs into law?  Even if Congress felt the need to supply leadership that should have come from the president, why would it address engineering issues, especially since it has declined to address top-level issues, like whether the goal is returning to the moon, going to an NEA or Mars, which might reasonably be regarded within politicians' purview?

* Why would Congress studiously ignore the conclusions of both the Augustine Committee and of the NRC study that it itself commissioned that NASA is going nowhere with Orion/SLS without a lot more money?  And I do mean studiously.  During one hearing, multiple Congressman were whining to Bolden about wanting to go to the moon instead of to a hijacked asteroid.  Bolden told them that going to the moon would be great, but he'd need a lot more money.  Two of the Congressmen at least had the self-consciousness to get that deer-in-headlight look, but Lamar Smith (I have a Youtube link, but unfortunately it doesn't work anymore) just went yakking on as though he had not heard Bolden.  What's with that?

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

* With Orion and SLS years behind schedule and, therefore, billions over budget, why would the 2017 Authorization say (Para. 421[a][1]) that "NASA has made steady progress in developing and testing the Space Launch System and Orion exploration systems"?

There are many more such questions, but I'll stop here, because this is turning into quite a rant.  My point is that all of the above are easy to answer if pork is the dominant concern and difficult to answer if it is not.  I'm sure there is some interest in Congress in actually accomplishing something, but I'd be grateful if you could offer some evidence that it's anything other than an afterthought.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
You forgot to include that Congress mandated that NASA use the same contractors, contracting approach, and NASA centers (that had botched the Constellation effort so badly).  This specificity sidestepped a handful of USG rules about awarding work sole source in this manner.
"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
Regarding the graphic that Mr. Gerstenmaier presented, I have a question

Does everyone think that is accurate?  For example, Is Vulcan and New Glenn in the notional category, or should they be more in the advanced development stage?
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
It seems to me that graphic is missing a category, namely early development.

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Liked: 322
  • Likes Given: 171
Could there be an equilibrium where Orion doesn't ever fly (except perhaps w/o people on EM-1), but SLS flies every couple of years to loft heavy payloads like the lunar outpost that's discussed in another thread, and NASA procures all crew vehicles from commercial providers?  I'm not talking about whether it's a good use of money, or right, or..., but in the political sense.  Could Congress get behind such an idea?

Without the need for Orion, that program's money could go into building payloads, at no increase to NASA's budget.
Recovering astronomer

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Regarding the graphic that Mr. Gerstenmaier presented, I have a question

Does everyone think that is accurate?  For example, Is Vulcan and New Glenn in the notional category, or should they be more in the advanced development stage?

If the vehicles were sequenced in order of initial flight, the sequence would be quite different.
SLS Block 2 with new boosters would be near last, Vulcan would be before Ariane 6, etc.

The message is fairly clear that NASA is cracking the door to sharing 'Exploration' rather trying to have it for themselves
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Could there be an equilibrium where Orion doesn't ever fly (except perhaps w/o people on EM-1), but SLS flies every couple of years...

NASA has stated that the MINIMUM safe flight cadence is launching the SLS NO LESS THAN every 12 months.  That is the minimum flight rate, so NASA would need payloads that fit into that 12 month cadence, no matter what they are.

Only rotating crew at a Deep Space Habitat once every 12 months doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, especially since such a station won't be a remote outpost, but a science station that is proving how we can expand humanity out into space.

Quote
...to loft heavy payloads like the lunar outpost that's discussed in another thread, and NASA procures all crew vehicles from commercial providers?  I'm not talking about whether it's a good use of money, or right, or..., but in the political sense.  Could Congress get behind such an idea?

Only rotating crew at a Deep Space Habitat once every 12 months doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, especially since such a station won't be a remote outpost, but a science station that is proving how we can expand humanity out into space.  So either more Orion & SLS would be built and launched per year, or a commercial alternative would have to be found (i.e. Dragon Crew to start, but others to follow).

All this hinges on the assumption that Congress will want to fund a follow-up to the ISS before the ISS has been decommissioned - and we don't yet know when the end date for the ISS, only the current "no earlier than" date.

I've seen nothing that indicates Congress is ready to fund any new HSF programs, and if NASA finally tells them how much the SLS and Orion systems will cost to operate that could, if the costs are perceived as high, kill such an effort.

Too little information still...
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 AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Could there be an equilibrium where Orion doesn't ever fly (except perhaps w/o people on EM-1), but SLS flies every couple of years to loft heavy payloads like the lunar outpost that's discussed in another thread, and NASA procures all crew vehicles from commercial providers?  I'm not talking about whether it's a good use of money, or right, or..., but in the political sense.  Could Congress get behind such an idea?

Without the need for Orion, that program's money could go into building payloads, at no increase to NASA's budget.

SLS without Orion and human qualification could be ready much sooner, cheaper, and not be constrained to the every year baseline rate which is another expensive facet that could be dropped.  Gerst never mentioned Orion -- maybe that is a message or clue (like the dog that didn't bark).  It certainly wasn't the centerpiece of his message.

The article mentions private rockets even delivering crew into deep space.  Not Grest's words because not supplied as a quote.  Wonder if that is what he said or implied?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Liked: 322
  • Likes Given: 171
Could there be an equilibrium where Orion doesn't ever fly (except perhaps w/o people on EM-1), but SLS flies every couple of years...

NASA has stated that the MINIMUM safe flight cadence is launching the SLS NO LESS THAN every 12 months.  That is the minimum flight rate, so NASA would need payloads that fit into that 12 month cadence, no matter what they are.

Only rotating crew at a Deep Space Habitat once every 12 months doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, especially since such a station won't be a remote outpost, but a science station that is proving how we can expand humanity out into space.

Agreed.  Maybe use SLS to launch inexpensive but heavy modules stuffed with consumables, or hab modules, etc., and build up a large volume eventually.  Aim for replaceability and redundancy, with a regular cycling of modules, so that you don't have to have an "end date" for the whole station, and you've got the beginnings of something interesting.   SLS gets a job, commercial crew gets a job, and you end up with a station with eventually hundreds of inhabitants.  But IANARS, or a politician (thankfully on that one) and I'm sure there are many reasons that won't work.

But it's sad and frustrating to watch so much work by so many good people, and so much money, just go pfffft.
Recovering astronomer

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Unless there is a specific and long-term need, the U.S. Government should not have a need to own space transportation systems, and should instead focus on the activities at the end points of transportation systems.

Would you rule out a role for government in develop transportation technology?

You weren't asking me. Like that ever stopped me before.

The libertarian in me says no, tech development, even basic research is market driven.  Not a proper government function (my FB wall has a long post about the proper functions of government... NASA isn't in it at all. Not even a little bit.... but that's not reality)

The pragmatist but still mostly libertarian says let the government do basic research since it's hard to properly allocate costs, and that keeps the cupboard full of new basic knowledge which is super needful for significant game changing new tech. License the basic knowledge to the market people developing new tech and roll the license money back into more basic research (don't give it away free)

The more pragmatic but still kinda libertarian says, in this environment, very very mixed, not free market, the government can do tech development too... especially when we're talking about moving from TRL1 to TRL 4 or 5 or so...  but no actually building transport or actual hardware, just buy it from market providers (which have somehow magically gotten good at making stuff)

The mostly pragmatic, trying to live in the actual world we are in now..... says all that..... but also this... yes, face it, we have to put up with SLS because no way can congress depork to that level fast enough, so sure, loft habs and giant single piece equipment with it. But don't manrate SLS itself. If Orion really is suitable for deep space, manrate something to loft Orion and if necessary (ACES?) help it mate with whatever SLS lofted. If it's not really suitable (which is what I mostly believe), use Crew Dragon plus a transit hab whenever you need to go somewhere deepspace and scrap Orion.

Hows that for nuanced?

« Last Edit: 03/14/2017 09:48 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Unless there is a specific and long-term need, the U.S. Government should not have a need to own space transportation systems, and should instead focus on the activities at the end points of transportation systems.

Would you rule out a role for government in develop transportation technology?

No.

Investing in, and directly supporting, technologies that the U.S. Government wants the private sector to be good at is in the national interests of the United States.  And in fact NACA, NASA's precursor, was directly involved in making our aircraft industries world class.  So I would love NASA to be more NACA like.

Will that happen?  Not while the SLS and Orion are around, since NASA will be beholden to funding their use.
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 Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
The mostly pragmatic, trying to live in the actual world we are in now..... says all that..... but also this... yes, face it, we have to put up with SLS because no way can congress depork to that level fast enough, so sure, loft habs and giant single piece equipment with it.

Even after all these years there is an assumption that Congress is on the verge of funding something big for the SLS and Orion to do, even if it's just to give them something to do.

I have yet to see that happen.

And even if the upcoming FY2018 funding law authorized NASA to build some sort of big HSF hardware effort that only the SLS could support, based on past and current history that type of hardware would be unlikely to be ready for launch until 2030 or so.

So there is a HUGE launch schedule gap that will become apparent once anyone starts actually looking at what the SLS and Orion should be doing during the next decade.  And that assumes Congress will be OK with the cost numbers NASA finally releases on the SLS and Orion.  Which is not a given.

I just point this out to show that there are hard questions that will have to be addressed "soon" about what NASA is staffed to support versus what the nation needs them to support.

As to space transportation systems in general, a goal of the U.S. Government could be to encourage the expansion of humanity out into space, and that could be justified on the basis of expanding our sphere of economic influence out into space (not sure anything else would be supportable long-term).  That could provide NASA with some specific direction on how they are to support the private sector, but I can't see that requiring the level of NASA support that the SLS and Orion have today.

Times and priorities change, and I think a reassessment for NASA is coming soon - regardless who would have been elected President.
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 Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Lar & Coastal Ron:  I thought technology development was a big part of what NACA did.

EDIT:  Added missing final 't' in "thought."
« Last Edit: 03/31/2017 10:18 am by Proponent »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
SNIP
* Why does the 2010 Act write rocket specs into law?  Even if Congress felt the need to supply leadership that should have come from the president, why would it address engineering issues, especially since it has declined to address top-level issues, like whether the goal is returning to the moon, going to an NEA or Mars, which might reasonably be regarded within politicians' purview?

SNIP

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

3-* With Orion and SLS years behind schedule and, therefore, billions over budget, why would the 2017 Authorization say (Para. 421[a][1]) that "NASA has made steady progress in developing and testing the Space Launch System and Orion exploration systems"?

By your own admission you're on a rant, so I'm guessing there's little point in discussing this, but I'll respond to three of the above points here, and then make two more general comments:

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.


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."


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.


Here's general point #1: Welcome to democracy. This is how it works. There's a back and forth, push and pull between the executive and legislative branches. And quite often the outcome of that push and pull is a lack of progress, or much slower progress than one side wants. Congress has been signaling to the White House for a long time that it wants NASA to do beyond low Earth exploration missions (Moon, then Mars). But Congress can only do so much. It can largely signal that is what it wants, but it cannot enact it on its own. So Congress has pushed for the big rocket, but it cannot dictate all the other necessary things. It can mostly signal, by requiring NASA to establish a roadmap, for example, and then pushing the White House to start implementing that roadmap. And remember: the Obama White House didn't really want to go beyond low Earth orbit, especially if it was going to cost a lot more money. Go back and find the original FY2011 budget proposal--it killed Constellation, but did not replace it with a new program to go beyond LEO. Only after a lot of yelling did the administration suddenly invent the asteroid mission, which it never bothered to fund. You cannot talk about a lack of progress as if the White House had no involvement at all.

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.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Bolden strikes me as an intelligent and decent person, who was miscast as NASA administrator.

I'm not sure he was miscast as NASA administrator. It is entirely possible that he was (perhaps by accident) exactly what the administration wanted: a guy who would follow orders, not bring his own agenda--at least publicly--and who would keep the agency on an even keel. He did all that, so if that is what the administration wanted, he was great.

Oftentimes administrations want people to lead agencies who will implement their agendas. And sometimes that means getting a leader who agrees with the administration's agenda and will advocate for it (witness what is happening at EPA right now). But sometimes they may settle for somebody who doesn't oppose the agenda and who also doesn't screw up. I think that the first requirement for NASA administrator is "Don't embarrass the White House."

The thing that really puzzles me is how someone who has a tough time staying on message and wears his emotions on his sleeve ever became a Marine Corps general.  That in turn makes me wonder, in my more skeptical moods, whether he was not at times dissembling.  Perhaps he was actually rather more focused than he liked to let on but found a softer public persona useful.

I think that there are different aspects to what makes people good leaders. Some leaders have vision and agenda and the ability to persuade people to follow them. I think that others may lack the vision and agenda stuff, but are good at what they do and personable, and so people are willing to follow them. I think that Bolden was the latter and that helped advance him in the Marines--he was a good pilot, he was dedicated to the Corps, and he cared a lot for his fellow Marines. He flew combat missions over Vietnam, so he certainly was brave. People who worked with him liked him, although I suspect that many accepted that he didn't have a long-term vision for NASA.

I wonder further, given his long and deep experience with the Shuttle, whether he might have been an agent of the Shuttle ecosystem, never on board with the administration's FY 2011 plan for NASA to begin with.  Maybe he did not want FY 2011 rolled out well.

What I heard, which I don't know is true, is that he opposed the cancellation of Constellation but he was overruled. He then was a good soldier and did what he was ordered to do. He was not politically sophisticated enough to go behind the curtains and manipulate an outcome that he wanted. Other people at the agency may have been better at that kind of maneuvering. One question to ask is where the rocket design specs that Congress wrote into law came from...

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 621
  • Likes Given: 2131
Congress has been signaling to the White House for a long time that it wants NASA to do beyond low Earth exploration missions (Moon, then Mars). But Congress can only do so much. It can largely signal that is what it wants, but it cannot enact it on its own. So Congress has pushed for the big rocket, but it cannot dictate all the other necessary things. It can mostly signal, by requiring NASA to establish a roadmap, for example, and then pushing the White House to start implementing that roadmap. And remember: the Obama White House didn't really want to go beyond low Earth orbit, especially if it was going to cost a lot more money. Go back and find the original FY2011 budget proposal--it killed Constellation, but did not replace it with a new program to go beyond LEO. Only after a lot of yelling did the administration suddenly invent the asteroid mission, which it never bothered to fund. You cannot talk about a lack of progress as if the White House had no involvement at all.

According to the Augustine Commission (and most experts) NASA could not do (i) human exploration using (ii) current technology and (iii) the current budget. Pick any two. Obama's proposal to do R&D now and explore later was basically a choice for (i) and (iii). Congress ordered NASA to do all three, which in practice was a choice for (ii) and (iii). Congress could have raised NASA's budget to get (i) and (ii) but chose not to do so. AFAICT a budget increase was necessary and sufficient for exploration regardless of who was in the white house.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
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.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0