Is A Human Space Flight Compromise Emerging? (STS Extension/SD HLV etc)

[phantomdj]

IMO, they are doing the best service to NASA since the whole Constellation mess (actually, since way before that... even before Shuttle): getting it out of the launcher business and back into the spacecraft and development business.

This administration has “punted” exploration down the road for the next 15 years and has decided to continue to go around in circles during these next 15 years like we have for the last 30 years.  I’m sure this inspires my daughter and her generation.

And who says NASA engineers are the best designer of spacecraft?  They may create the specs but it was the engineers at private companies that made the greatest contributions in the past.  It is my understanding that it was Grumman engineers that came up with the weight savings ideas on the LM to reduce the landing legs from 5 to 4, remove the seats, and make the windows smaller.  I also do not believe the NASA of today can hold a candle to the NASA of the past.

It could again but not with the leadership it has now.

[Robotbeat]

IMO, they are doing the best service to NASA since the whole Constellation mess (actually, since way before that... even before Shuttle): getting it out of the launcher business and back into the spacecraft and development business.

This administration has “punted” exploration down the road for the next 15 years and has decided to continue to go around in circles during these next 15 years like we have for the last 30 years.  I’m sure this inspires my daughter and her generation.
...

The previous administration "punted" the necessary budget increase for NASA to the current administration. No difference.

NASA could've chosen an architecture that didn't need such a big budget increase, but they didn't.

[clongton]

IMO, they are doing the best service to NASA since the whole Constellation mess (actually, since way before that... even before Shuttle): getting it out of the launcher business and back into the spacecraft and development business.

This administration has “punted” exploration down the road for the next 15 years and has decided to continue to go around in circles during these next 15 years like we have for the last 30 years.  I’m sure this inspires my daughter and her generation.

And who says NASA engineers are the best designer of spacecraft?  They may create the specs but it was the engineers at private companies that made the greatest contributions in the past.  It is my understanding that it was Grumman engineers that came up with the weight savings ideas on the LM to reduce the landing legs from 5 to 4, remove the seats, and make the windows smaller.  I also do not believe the NASA of today can hold a candle to the NASA of the past.

It could again but not with the leadership it has now.

Very well said

[clongton]

NASA could've chosen an architecture that didn't need such a big budget increase, but they didn't.

"NASA" didn't choose the CxP architecture; Mike Griffin brought it into NASA with him and jammed it down NASA's throat. While there were some in the community that welcomed it, my personal experience with the DIRECT Team tells me that there was a significant percentage, especially among the experienced, that hated the idea with a passion. Some of them tried to change things and got "punished" for it; some of them paid with their jobs. Thus was DIRECT born, powered from the inside by NASA and Contractor design engineers and managers.

[Robotbeat]

NASA could've chosen an architecture that didn't need such a big budget increase, but they didn't.

"NASA" didn't choose the CxP architecture; Mike Griffin brought it into NASA with him and jammed it down NASA's throat.

Fair enough. Griffin's fault.

[mike robel]

NASA may be going to Moon and Mars but I do know 2 people who are not - President Obama and Administrator Bolden.  Their terms will be over before the manned spaceships arrive.

I'd like to see both of them, along with their deputies, out on their butts tomorrow. They are screwing the hooch for all of us.

Fifty percent in the house, two thirds in the Senate.  Start making phone calls.

One Hundred percent in the house, two thirds in the Senate.  Start making phone calls.

[Robotbeat]

NASA may be going to Moon and Mars but I do know 2 people who are not - President Obama and Administrator Bolden.  Their terms will be over before the manned spaceships arrive.

I'd like to see both of them, along with their deputies, out on their butts tomorrow. They are screwing the hooch for all of us.

Fifty percent in the house, two thirds in the Senate.  Start making phone calls.

One Hundred percent in the house, two thirds in the Senate.  Start making phone calls.

Great. Why? Any legal reason besides that you just don't like him? Reminds me of the extreme left-wing during the previous administration... just as ridiculous. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. This has no place on NSF.

[Namechange User]

IMO, they are doing the best service to NASA since the whole Constellation mess (actually, since way before that... even before Shuttle): getting it out of the launcher business and back into the spacecraft and development business.

What spacecraft?  Orion is in a massive state of flux. 

Thanks to having to wait for the dang launcher.

What development?  The Galveston "wish-list" with all the disclaimers?

As for getting out of the launch business, ok fine, if that is the "ah-ha moment" that so many think is the key to everything.

It's not just an "ah-ha" moment. NASA has been operating an HLV (Shuttle) with an MLV budget, which is why it took so dang long for Space Station Freedom to get built, meanwhile the Russians had their own space stations in orbit and operating. I don't have this libertarian idea that it's impossible for the "gubmint" to do anything right (nor did I vote for 'bama). But NASA obviously think that they have to have a kick-butt launcher if they will have any launcher at all, partly because they have so many people invested in launch operations. This has sucked most of the money out of human spacecraft development at NASA for generations.

Unfortunately, all of that is wrong. 

Orion is not in the massive state of flux it is right now because of Ares 1.  Orion is in the massive state of flux it is in now because of politics.  Granted, the performance of Ares 1 caused a lot of unnecessary suffering over the last several years, yet it is not just that.  In addition, and to your original statement, is Orion "the" spacecraft or will there be others and different types?  Again, no one knows. 

As to the rest, If NASA has been operating an HLV (shuttle) on a Medium Launch Vehile budget, is that not a good thing?  In addition, people like to dog on shuttle, yet it much more than a launch vehicle.  It is the launch vehicle, it is the spacecraft, it is the on-orbit operations base, it is the entry vehicle, etc.  That is why when folks want to compare it to someone else, it becomes difficult and why it is wrong to characterize the way you have with "obvious" conclusions that are not facts. 

As to Space Station Freedom, it was never built.  The reason it took so long for ISS is again politics.  The same politics and policies that created X-33, SLI, etc and all the other "game-changing" proposals that never evolved anything but wanted to start from a blank-sheet and expect everything.  Sound familar? 

[clongton]

NASA may be going to Moon and Mars but I do know 2 people who are not - President Obama and Administrator Bolden.  Their terms will be over before the manned spaceships arrive.

I'd like to see both of them, along with their deputies, out on their butts tomorrow. They are screwing the hooch for all of us.

Fifty percent in the house, two thirds in the Senate.  Start making phone calls.

One Hundred percent in the house, two thirds in the Senate.  Start making phone calls.

100 percent of both the House and the Senate although I would exempt any legislator serving their 1st term because the people put them there to get rid of someone else. Everybody else - goodbye - not elegible for re-election. There are far too many people in there who have built empires to protect rather than attend to the peoples' business. I would mandate that senior staff members be retained for at least 1 term of the newly elected legislators, to provide the continuity of the people's business that would be required.

This would unfortunately get some legislators caught up in the sweep that I would rather see retained, but it's long past time for a clean sweep. Democrat or Republican replacements - I don't care. I want new people who are beholden to and in fear of the voters who put them there.

The Congress has been weak and paralized for far too long and the peoples' business is not getting done, including American HSF. Far too many of them would rather point fingers of blame at the others than roll up their sleeves and get to work on our business. It's time to change that so that we can get on with it.

But we digress.

[phantomdj]

A final thought on “getting it out of the launcher business.”

Space used to be a collaboration between government and industry toward a common goal.  Today it’s just a business with no common goal.  Years ago Dan Goldin, I believe, made a profound comment in a speech as NASA’s administrator by chastising the aerospace companies for sucking on the teat of government for too long and not building their own spacecrafts. So here we are 10 to 15 years since he made that comment and the same aerospace companies are flying the same old Atlas’ and Delta’s.

Why did it take an upstart like SpaceX to do what the “aerospace giants” where unable or unwilling to do?  Did he foresee a better business plan?  For small and medium launchers private industry may be able to make a profit without “sucking onthe teat of government” but for HLV, the government will have to show the way to BEO and prime the pump before private industry will see a business plan that can make sense and a profit. 

The government has to be in the launcher business for heavy lift, and yes, design most of it (hopfully in collaboration) because aerospace companies have shown they will not do it on their own. Maybe entrepreneurs like Musk will find less expensive ways to do it but that will take a long time.  We have most of the parts now to start building a HLV and should not wait 5 years (punt some more) to make a decision to build it and fly 10 to 15 years from now.

[A_M_Swallow]

IMO, they are doing the best service to NASA since the whole Constellation mess (actually, since way before that... even before Shuttle): getting it out of the launcher business and back into the spacecraft and development business.

What spacecraft?  Orion is in a massive state of flux. 

Particularly when the Orion loses its parachute and reentry heat shield. 
Gaining a reusable service module with sufficient delta-V to get the spacecraft to EML1/2 (3.77 km/s) will permit escape from LEO.  Orion mark N can refuel at the both EML and LEO propellant depots.

Although an order to do this has not been given/revealed yet.

What development?  The Galveston "wish-list" with all the disclaimers?

The CCDev programme is the start of the new developments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development

The Commercial Crew Developments are
"
    * Blue Origin - $3.7M for an innovative 'pusher' Launch Abort System (LAS) and composite pressure vessels
    * Boeing - $18M for development of the Orion Lite spacecraft
    * Paragon Space Development Corporation - $1.4M for a plug-and-play environmental control and life support system (ECLSS)
    * Sierra Nevada Corporation - $20M for development of the Dream Chaser spaceplane
    * United Launch Alliance - $6.7M for an Emergency Detection System (EDS) for human-rating its EELV launch vehicles
"

Hopefully some combination of these will provide manned Earth to LEO facilities.

As for getting out of the launch business, ok fine, if that is the "ah-ha moment" that so many think is the key to everything.  So we have ULA and one flight of Falcon 9.  What goes on them?  Dragon is the only thing that is really a "known commodity".  When will it, and all the others, be ready, proven and operational?

Good question.  There should be official estimates soon, possibly in the agreements.

I could go on.  I do believe the administrator is an honorable man.  However, I also believe there are a lot of questions left unanswered and too many things that could completely derail everything to just shutter everything and increase risk to ISS on a non-detailed, non-specific plan that may or may not culminate with a crew going to a small rock 15 years from now. 

Bigelow has talked about spacestations at LEO and EML1 - a NASA space agreement will produce about half of the infrastructure.

FY2010 has a Flagship Technology Demonstrator that tests in-space propellant technology.  Someone needs to ensure that it actually flies.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main_Exploration.pdf 
See page 5 of the Exploration Systems budget request.

Depots at LEO and EML1 will need building plus a high Isp tug to get the propellant to the EML1 depot.

[Robotbeat]

IMO, they are doing the best service to NASA since the whole Constellation mess (actually, since way before that... even before Shuttle): getting it out of the launcher business and back into the spacecraft and development business.

What spacecraft?  Orion is in a massive state of flux. 

Thanks to having to wait for the dang launcher.

What development?  The Galveston "wish-list" with all the disclaimers?

As for getting out of the launch business, ok fine, if that is the "ah-ha moment" that so many think is the key to everything.

It's not just an "ah-ha" moment. NASA has been operating an HLV (Shuttle) with an MLV budget, which is why it took so dang long for Space Station Freedom to get built, meanwhile the Russians had their own space stations in orbit and operating. I don't have this libertarian idea that it's impossible for the "gubmint" to do anything right (nor did I vote for 'bama). But NASA obviously think that they have to have a kick-butt launcher if they will have any launcher at all, partly because they have so many people invested in launch operations. This has sucked most of the money out of human spacecraft development at NASA for generations.

Unfortunately, all of that is wrong. 

Orion is not in the massive state of flux it is right now because of Ares 1.  Orion is in the massive state of flux it is in now because of politics.

I understand that that was what you meant, but the situation we are in now is exactly because of the problem I brought up: NASA building their own launcher. Orion would already be finished by now, and probably would've had its first test-flights, if it had been launched on an EELV.

  Granted, the performance of Ares 1 caused a lot of unnecessary suffering over the last several years, yet it is not just that.  In addition, and to your original statement, is Orion "the" spacecraft or will there be others and different types?  Again, no one knows. 

No one knows that Shuttle will survive its next flight, either.

As to the rest, If NASA has been operating an HLV (shuttle) on a Medium Launch Vehile budget, is that not a good thing?  In addition, people like to dog on shuttle, yet it much more than a launch vehicle.  It is the launch vehicle, it is the spacecraft, it is the on-orbit operations base, it is the entry vehicle, etc.  That is why when folks want to compare it to someone else, it becomes difficult and why it is wrong to characterize the way you have with "obvious" conclusions that are not facts. 

I understand that. It's not a good thing, because what did NASA get for its HLV? Big, 100-ton monolithic space stations? Trips to the moon? Nope!

EDIT:The only HLV payload that NASA can afford to fly half a dozen times a year is a reusable one: the Orbiter itself.

I understand that the Shuttle is flexible. It's a launch vehicle, crew capsule, and a space station. Only, it has no greater launch capacity than Heavy EELVs, it has no LAS for the crew, can't go beyond LEO, and it can only last two weeks up there by itself!

The concept isn't that bad, really. But too many compromises make it too expensive to be able to do a lot of the neat things that people thought we could do with it, except Space Station Freedom... which eventually evolved into ISS (and part of that was built via ELVs). A reusable crew transport to LEO makes a lot of sense, but not after it also has have the capability to haul cargo up and down (to polar orbit on a single orbit! ...at least originally).

[A_M_Swallow]

As to Space Station Freedom, it was never built.  The reason it took so long for ISS is again politics.  The same politics and policies that created X-33, SLI, etc and all the other "game-changing" proposals that never evolved anything but wanted to start from a blank-sheet and expect everything.  Sound familar? 

It sounds like R&D projects have to be structured to produce something useful every 3 years.  The project may not survive the politicians but its outfeeds may.

[jongoff]

IMO, they are doing the best service to NASA since the whole Constellation mess (actually, since way before that... even before Shuttle): getting it out of the launcher business and back into the spacecraft and development business.

This administration has “punted” exploration down the road for the next 15 years and has decided to continue to go around in circles during these next 15 years like we have for the last 30 years.  I’m sure this inspires my daughter and her generation.

No, this administration didn't "punt" exploration any further down the road than it already was going to be.  Whether the PoR, FY 2011, or any of the realistic constrained budget cases that A-com looked at, none of them would have what most people here consider exploration much earlier than the mid 2020s. 

Even DIRECT or other SDLV based exploration missions would also be into the mid 2020s before they got into real exploration without a huge budget increase.  Back when Ares-I was first pitched, it was going to cost $1B and be ready in only a few years.  Even when it was first started at NASA it was supposed to be quick and easy.  While I think DIRECT may have less problems than Ares-I, I don't have much confidence in the team at NASA that would be developing it.  Because face it, unless NASA MSFC rolls over dead, they're going to find a way to get themselves involved in the process, and the net result is going to be a lot more cost and schedule than the numbers Ross and co have been proposing.

IMO, I'd rather have an administration that's honest about schedule than one that keeps blowing smoke about how Real Soon Now we'll be going back to the Moon (or wherever the location de jure is).

I think we could start doing exploration faster on this budget, just not under the constraints NASA operates on.  If NASA were allowed to take risks, and treated explorers like explorers instead of irreplaceable precious national assets, we could get a lot further quicker.  If NASA's sponsors in Congress cared more about exploration than workforce maintenance, we could get a lot further quicker.  If NASA were willing to start smaller, do things incrementally, and take extra risks along the way, we could move a lot faster.

But NASA run the way Congress and NASA want to run themselves isn't going to get exploration before the mid-2020's under any realistic budget.  Blaming the current administration for pointing out the imperial striptease that's been going on for at least half a decade seems a bit silly.

~Jon

[clongton]

A very large part of it is going to have to be taken private or it is likely to be the same story in a different suit.

[yinzer]

As to Space Station Freedom, it was never built.  The reason it took so long for ISS is again politics.  The same politics and policies that created X-33, SLI, etc and all the other "game-changing" proposals that never evolved anything but wanted to start from a blank-sheet and expect everything.  Sound familar? 

Very much so.  This is the rut that NASA had to break out from, but that Constellation fell right back in to.  Overpromise initially, when the time to spend big money approaches realize the problems in your approach, so shelve it in favor of the latest overpromises.

But... human spaceflight has always been political.  People thought there might be a military use for Dyna-Soar, but once it became clear there wasn't it got axed.  People thought the Shuttle would be so cheap it'd but the expendables out of business, but once it became clear that it wasn't all the non-NASA customers left.

If it wasn't for politics there'd be no ISS...

[grdja]

Now, I support DIRECT over CxP anytime.

And Obama's plant is bad, not in the "killing the HSF" but in like past 30 years of USA presidents "I have nothing against space exploration but I certainly don't want to pay for it so you can only draw nice pictures while I'm in office".

Still, I looked at good ol' DIRECT 2 x J-246 Lunar mission. And kept remembering ULA ACES idea. Depots in LEO and L1, reusing everything that can be... Its how space exploration should be done. DIRECT is certainly cheaper and easier to do than CxP, but it still has the terrible concern of all proposed HLVs... you spend so much for vehicle you can't afford the missions.

[clongton]

Now, I support DIRECT over CxP anytime.

And Obama's plant is bad, not in the "killing the HSF" but in like past 30 years of USA presidents "I have nothing against space exploration but I certainly don't want to pay for it so you can only draw nice pictures while I'm in office".

Still, I looked at good ol' DIRECT 2 x J-246 Lunar mission. And kept remembering ULA ACES idea. Depots in LEO and L1, reusing everything that can be... Its how space exploration should be done. DIRECT is certainly cheaper and easier to do than CxP, but it still has the terrible concern of all proposed HLVs... you spend so much for vehicle you can't afford the missions.

You haven't paid close enough attention to the costing profiles of the DIRECT architecture. DIRECT actually made *ALL* the mission goals of the ESAS possible within the existing budget - and more!

[neilh]

No, this administration didn't "punt" exploration any further down the road than it already was going to be.  Whether the PoR, FY 2011, or any of the realistic constrained budget cases that A-com looked at, none of them would have what most people here consider exploration much earlier than the mid 2020s. 

Even DIRECT or other SDLV based exploration missions would also be into the mid 2020s before they got into real exploration without a huge budget increase.  Back when Ares-I was first pitched, it was going to cost $1B and be ready in only a few years.  Even when it was first started at NASA it was supposed to be quick and easy.  While I think DIRECT may have less problems than Ares-I, I don't have much confidence in the team at NASA that would be developing it.  Because face it, unless NASA MSFC rolls over dead, they're going to find a way to get themselves involved in the process, and the net result is going to be a lot more cost and schedule than the numbers Ross and co have been proposing.

IMO, I'd rather have an administration that's honest about schedule than one that keeps blowing smoke about how Real Soon Now we'll be going back to the Moon (or wherever the location de jure is).

I think we could start doing exploration faster on this budget, just not under the constraints NASA operates on.  If NASA were allowed to take risks, and treated explorers like explorers instead of irreplaceable precious national assets, we could get a lot further quicker.  If NASA's sponsors in Congress cared more about exploration than workforce maintenance, we could get a lot further quicker.  If NASA were willing to start smaller, do things incrementally, and take extra risks along the way, we could move a lot faster.

But NASA run the way Congress and NASA want to run themselves isn't going to get exploration before the mid-2020's under any realistic budget.  Blaming the current administration for pointing out the imperial striptease that's been going on for at least half a decade seems a bit silly.

~Jon

Hear, hear!

[jongoff]

Now, I support DIRECT over CxP anytime.

And Obama's plant is bad, not in the "killing the HSF" but in like past 30 years of USA presidents "I have nothing against space exploration but I certainly don't want to pay for it so you can only draw nice pictures while I'm in office".

Still, I looked at good ol' DIRECT 2 x J-246 Lunar mission. And kept remembering ULA ACES idea. Depots in LEO and L1, reusing everything that can be... Its how space exploration should be done. DIRECT is certainly cheaper and easier to do than CxP, but it still has the terrible concern of all proposed HLVs... you spend so much for vehicle you can't afford the missions.

You haven't paid close enough attention to the costing profiles of the DIRECT architecture. DIRECT actually made *ALL* the mission goals of the ESAS possible within the existing budget - and more!

DIRECT in it's Platonically ideal form, pre-contact-with-reality form sure.  But when reality (in the form of NASA execution) actually kicks in, I doubt it will actually allow exploration worthy of the name under the existing budget. 

[Edit: I should be clear--when I say contact with reality, I mean that while I think you guys have done a great job of fleshing the idea out, and it's technically feasible, that political and bureaucratic forces are going to make you cry by the time they're done with your idea.]
~Jon