Perhaps now that Bolden has left the agency, Gerstenmaier feels more able to speak out. During his comments this week, he noted that due to its high cost, the SLS rocket will only be able to fly once a year. "That doesn't make for a very compelling human-spaceflight program," he said.
"We're going to be using some of these other rockets to augment what we're doing with SLS. So SLS is used for that unique case where we have to launch one very large mass that can't be broken up into separate pieces"
It is called a 'tactical retreat'
Quote from: AncientU on 03/09/2017 03:05 pmIt is called a 'tactical retreat' Nothing of the sort.
Quote from: Jim on 03/09/2017 03:17 pmQuote from: AncientU on 03/09/2017 03:05 pmIt is called a 'tactical retreat' Nothing of the sort. Yeah, I think this is all being over-interpreted. Part of the problem is that the reporter is comparing what Gerst is saying now to something that Bolden said a little while ago. The problem with that is that Bolden often said things that were not exactly the policy, or even what he meant to say. So people took him literally when they really should have run his statements through an interpreter. Thus, I think there is less of an actual change now than the reporter thinks.NASA already uses "private" rockets--if you accept that "private" means something developed by a company, possibly with a lot of NASA money. So it's hard to see a fundamental shift here or even much of a change in policy. If somebody builds their big rocket and proves that it works, NASA may take a look at it. There are a whole bunch of conditional "ifs" involved.
This is by any measure an abrupt about face by NASA brass.
Quote from: AncientU on 03/09/2017 06:33 pmThis is by any measure an abrupt about face by NASA brass.Not really. You are only provide selective quotes that seem to support your POV. NASA is more than just SLS.
Gerst
QuoteGerstFor us Germans it is somewhat weird to see the name shortened like this.We do have an Astronaut with the name Alexander Gerst who was at the ISS:
The parts of NASA that are OT are human space flight, Gerst, SLS.
Well how are people supposed to know beforehand that they were meant to run everything he said through some kind of 'interpreter' first before getting to what he actually meant?
Quote from: Star One on 03/09/2017 05:50 pmWell how are people supposed to know beforehand that they were meant to run everything he said through some kind of 'interpreter' first before getting to what he actually meant?Not "beforehand," but after observing Bolden do that many times.I never worked with Bolden. I encountered him numerous times in a professional capacity, but never had to work with him. I know that people who interacted with him regularly found him to be a personable guy. I think that in retrospect, NASA had no major problems during his tenure as administrator. It ran smooth and steady, and that's an accomplishment that he should get credit for. As for Bolden's downsides, I would list several:-no clear sense of vision or where the agency was heading (and I don't include the humans to Mars talk, because it was all talk and little action)-he didn't care about anything other than human spaceflight-his lack of ability to talk about anything other than human spaceflight-his awkwardness as a public speaker-his lack of diplomacy or political savvyMany times those things combined in unfortunate ways. Go back and look at his "Muslim outreach" comments. What he was trying to say in an interview was that he was in the Middle East to talk to students in Muslim countries about science and education. Instead, he mucked it up, and the result was that for years conservatives with an axe to grind kept referring to NASA as the "Muslim outreach agency." It was a dumb blunder that he should not have made.And there were numerous other examples of those things combining in inappropriate ways. For instance, in summer 2015 when New Horizons flew past Pluto the NASA administrator should have hit a home run with that. All he had to do was put a little bit of thought into it and he could have talked about how historic it was that NASA was revealing the mysteries of one of the furthest objects in our solar system. He could have said that it demonstrated just how important NASA was to the United States and the world and the future--the agency was rewriting the text books and changing humanity's understanding of the universe. He could have been poetic and uplifting. And it would not have taken much effort at all, because it was all right there waiting for him to assemble the words. Instead, Bolden stood in front of a group of scientists and read from notecards about how New Horizons was another successful step on NASA's Journey to Mars. That kind of stuff deflates everybody in the room, because they know that the administrator has no understanding of what is happening and really doesn't care what they actually accomplished. At that moment, when he should have praised them, he turned it into a lame effort to push a tired public relations agenda for the Potemkin human spaceflight program. (Note: if you draw a line from Earth to Mars, you will not pass Pluto.)Add in the last point: Bolden had a tendency to say things that were more declarative than they should have been when a more politically savvy person might have left in some ambiguity. He sort of boxed himself into a corner at various times. (An example was when he stated that NASA would no longer build flagship class missions: right after that they approved Mars 2020, WFIRST and the Europa mission.) And if you watched him do that again and again, eventually you developed a filter for it. There's an old joke about military staffers: "What the generally meant to say was..." You just hope that the guy in charge is sharp enough to not blunder himself into stating things that his staff has to clarify later.
Not sure about the value of this thread, if NASA weren't funding private rockets throughout history, how many would exist? Keep the conversation focused and be excellent.
-no clear sense of vision or where the agency was heading (and I don't include the humans to Mars talk, because it was all talk and little action)
Many times those things combined in unfortunate ways. Go back and look at his "Muslim outreach" comments. What he was trying to say in an interview was that he was in the Middle East to talk to students in Muslim countries about science and education. Instead, he mucked it up, and the result was that for years conservatives with an axe to grind kept referring to NASA as the "Muslim outreach agency." It was a dumb blunder that he should not have made.
Quote from: D_Dom on 03/10/2017 03:35 pmNot sure about the value of this thread, if NASA weren't funding private rockets throughout history, how many would exist? Keep the conversation focused and be excellent.If the thread has value it is this:-the article implies that there is a change in policy/strategy-as several of us have pointed out, that is probably not really true, in part because people misunderstood the earlier policy/strategySo the value is that it clarifies things.A bit.Maybe.Sorta.Well, probably not...
Japan's H-IIB is notably absent from the operational rocket list.
Quote from: sfxtd on 03/10/2017 06:46 pmJapan's H-IIB is notably absent from the operational rocket list. There is no reason to list a retiring launcher as its manufacturer MHI is about to end production of H-IIB, as its last flight is in early JFY 2019, so that MHI can start retooling its facilities for the new H-III launcher family. H-IIA will retire in JFY 2023.
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/09/2017 09:57 pm-no clear sense of vision or where the agency was heading (and I don't include the humans to Mars talk, because it was all talk and little action)I always wondered how much of that was due to no support for a clear vision from the White House.
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.
I think Bolden found himself at the whims of an indifferent White House and an OMB that really didn't want to give NASA any more money....
As for the lack of vision from the White House? Hopefully some enterprising graduate student will try and tackle this subject, because it's really baffling. The White House sought to do a complete overhaul of NASA in early 2010 by canceling Constellation, Ares I, Ares V, Orion and Antares and the lunar goal. They also sought to create a big R&D budget inside NASA. They did all this in the most inept way they possibly could, ticking off many people in Congress, even those who should have been on their own side.
...So maybe Gerstenmaier is reading the writing on the wall, or maybe these are his personal beliefs, but anything out of NASA that encourages lowering the cost to access space overall is a good thing. It may not go anywhere, and the next NASA Administrator may reverse course and support only the SLS, but for now this should be garnering positive reviews. I hope that helps our politicians understand what they can do to help - in the right way.
Better a tactical retreat to something that can possibly be defended -- a public plus private exploration effort -- than a total rout.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 03/10/2017 05:42 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 03/09/2017 09:57 pm-no clear sense of vision or where the agency was heading (and I don't include the humans to Mars talk, because it was all talk and little action)I always wondered how much of that was due to no support for a clear vision from the White House.Ever since Kennedy we've expected our Presidents to be able to articulate long-lasting and inspirational space-related "visions". Except all that Kennedy did was take advantage of two converging international issues, the Space Race and the Cold War.Today not even the space community can agree on what the next goal should be in space, so how are less informed politicians supposed to understand what the next goal should be?
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<snip>
No. "Vision" does not require bold pronouncements and big inspiration and all that. It just requires setting goals and plotting a strategy to achieve them. The Obama administration didn't really try for that.
The asteroid mission is a good case in point. I'm not convinced that it was ever a serious proposal. I think that it was actually a public relations facade to create the illusion that they had a plan.
The robotic part of that asteroid redirect mission made far more pragmatic sense than Constellation's return to the Moon.Fair point that Obama didn't sell it very well, but Congress as a whole was out for his head, so hard to blame him much.
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 03/11/2017 11:58 pmAn 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. ...What's not to like?What's not to like is quite possibly paying $3 billion a year for a single SLS launch, or over $4 billion if Orion is included. It's not obvious that there would be much left over for anything else....
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. ...What's not to like?
...due to its high cost, the SLS rocket will only be able to fly once a year.
SLS is used for that unique case where we have to launch one very large mass that can't be broken up into separate pieces
We appear to be stuck with SLS for the next few years, but as soon as that hypothetical 'one very large mass' 1. exists, and 2. can be flown by someone else,SLS will be scrapped.
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 03/11/2017 11:58 pmIn 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. Yep, because SLS is history.
Quote from: AncientU on 03/12/2017 03:33 pmWe appear to be stuck with SLS for the next few years, but as soon as that hypothetical 'one very large mass' 1. exists, and 2. can be flown by someone else,SLS will be scrapped.Just as a reminder, the SLS has an 8m diameter body and cargo fairing, and the Blue Origin New Glenn rocket they hope to start launching in 2020 has a 7m diameter body and cargo fairing. The New Glenn will be capable of lifting 45mT to LEO, versus the initial SLS capacity of 70mT to LEO.So by the early 2020's the private launch sector should be able to lift any bulky NASA items to space that otherwise would have needed the SLS....
OldSpace, which includes most of the largest government contractors, wields far more political clout that NewSpace. It's not even close.
What NewSpace has going for it are those politicians that are capitalists and/or focus on price as a determinant for whether the government is needed or not to provide a service.
The New Glenn, which is now committed to be operational about the same time as the SLS (i.e. 2021) has a body diameter of 7m, compared to a body diameter of 8m for the SLS. And it will be able to lift 45mT to LEO.
Yep, because SLS is history.
What's not to like is quite possibly paying $3 billion a year for a single SLS launch, or over $4 billion if Orion is included. It's not obvious that there would be much left over for anything else.
After reading the last page of this thread I am reminded of MATTBLAK's sidebar quote, "'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)."Can we all not agree that this is at least a positive development and something to be excited about?
I never said they had equal political clout, only that each side had some and that it would foolish to engage in a "space civil war" that would deplete support for the space program as a whole.
Lets not pretend that politicians who support NewSpace are as pure as the wind-driven snow. Most OldSpace and NewSpace supporters in Congress only care about money going to their districts. If Mike Rogers were representing a district near Hawthorne instead of one near Huntsville his views would be a complete 180.
From what I understand NG has less performance BLEO than FH. We need to focus on BLEO numbers rather than LEO when comparing SLS to commercial rockets. Right now there are no serious plans to use SLS as a LEO launcher, NASA can let the private sector take care of that.
In a lot of posts on this forum there is an oft-repeated assumption that if SLS/Orion are canceled the money will flow to commercial space or other projects.
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 03/12/2017 07:19 pmAfter reading the last page of this thread I am reminded of MATTBLAK's sidebar quote, "'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)."Can we all not agree that this is at least a positive development and something to be excited about?I think there is a lot of joy about this....
Quote from: Jim on 03/12/2017 12:00 pmYep, because SLS is history.We'll see.
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.
The JPL analogy is not true. Congress still dicks with them.
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 03/12/2017 07:19 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/12/2017 12:00 pmYep, because SLS is history.We'll see. Many of the non SLS people at KSC think it is. Many wonder why we are wasting our time on it. Also, some JPL'ers feel the same way.
Quote from: Proponent on 03/12/2017 12:19 pmWhat's not to like is quite possibly paying $3 billion a year for a single SLS launch, or over $4 billion if Orion is included. It's not obvious that there would be much left over for anything else.Lets be clear here that this is less per year than we paid to launch the shuttle. Sure, there are less launches, but the slack can be picked up by the commercial rockets and the goal (a cis-lunar outpost) is far larger than LEO flights.
In a lot of posts on this forum there is an oft-repeated assumption that if SLS/Orion are canceled the money will flow to commercial space or other projects. At the very least that is not guaranteed and more than likely the money will leave the space program all together. Personally I would rather see that money remain a part of NASA's budget.
Three existing military rockets served NASA's manned space program just fine in the beginning. Though the largest of commercial launchers of the time may have been able to carry out a lunar program via an EOR architecture, rendezvous was not proven, and the massive Apollo-Nova program was proposed. It was feared Kennedy's goal would not be reached in time. Most here know the story of moving to LOR and Saturn instead. No existing rockets could accomplish a manned lunar goal and Saturn was thus justified in the minds of those who prevailed.As for STS, I don't even want to go into all the civilian and military politics.When Ares then SLS were proposed, nothing else was on the horizon (Falcon X was an idea for a portion of the time) that could do the job NASA wanted was told to do.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.
For instance, if SLS is cancelled what happens to MSFC? I can tell you that it will continue to exist so it will do the obvious alternative, providing its full oversight and influence on whoever NASA contracts with. The paper trails, x-ray'd welds, and supplier certification will be required for all launches with said launcher for the sake of oversight, without regard to what that will do to the contractor's commercial business.
Quote from: rayleighscatter on 03/13/2017 08:19 pmFor instance, if SLS is cancelled what happens to MSFC? I can tell you that it will continue to exist so it will do the obvious alternative, providing its full oversight and influence on whoever NASA contracts with. The paper trails, x-ray'd welds, and supplier certification will be required for all launches with said launcher for the sake of oversight, without regard to what that will do to the contractor's commercial business.If SLS is cancelled MSFC should be tasked with engineering in-space exploration hardware such as a deep space hab, moon lander, or Mars lander.
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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/13/2017 10:16 pmUnless 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?
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 03/10/2017 05:42 pmThe 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.
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.
Regarding the graphic that Mr. Gerstenmaier presented, I have a questionDoes 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?
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?
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.
Quote from: jgoldader on 03/14/2017 06:02 pmCould 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.
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.
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?SNIP2-* 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"?
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.
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.
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.
One question to ask is where the rocket design specs that Congress wrote into law came from...
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/15/2017 03:12 pmOne 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 03/15/2017 07:39 pmThe 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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/15/2017 08:24 pmQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 03/15/2017 07:39 pmThe 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.
Lar & Coastal Ron: I though technology development was a big part of what NACA did.
Quote from: Proponent on 03/11/2017 08:35 amI 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.
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.
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.
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
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 03/15/2017 07:39 pmBut 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 withFor 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.
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/
NASA doesn't need to do everything any more -- those days are gone.
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.
Here's general point #1: Welcome to democracy. This is how it works.
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.
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.
Quote from: Proponent on 03/19/2017 10:28 amin 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?
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.
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.
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.
Just off the top of my head the blunders in early 2010 were:...-scrambling after all the controversy to come up with a new goal, which led to Obama going to KSC and saying "It's asteroids."