Author Topic: ASAP claim NASA is employing indecision to allow for roadmap flexibility  (Read 197268 times)

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
As for "where is the lander?"...  Even if the Subcommittee wants a lander quite badly, they don't have the political capital right now to get one funded, partly because the White House interdicted the moon mission idea for no good reason.  And while I'm sure a lot of people at NASA want a moon mission, the top man is a WH appointee and won't go against his boss.

I basically said this, and more, in my post above.

It was Obama who cancelled Altair, along with Ares and Orion.  Congress could only bring back one and a half of them right away, and I think they chose wisely as far as that goes...

If all that's holding back NASA's top line is Bolden's unwillingness to cross Obama, why is it that under Bush II, Griffin's NASA didn't have the money to fund Altair?  Altair is about as live now as it was when Obama entered office.

Recall the House space subcommittee meeting last July on the 2013 NASA appropriation.  Chairman Palazzo explained at some length why NASA's budget would not and could grow (his remarks begin about 22 minutes into the recorded webcast).  In his view, it was because of entitlement spending, and this was echoed by other Republicans on the subcommittee.  I'm not so naive as to believe they couldn't change their views (politicians have a way of doing that).  But to believe that NASA would have a much larger budget were it not for the current president is not sensible.  It's just channelling Mike Griffin.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2014 09:56 am by Proponent »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
And my "guess" was that NASA would have reached that conclusion after they reassessed their future needs. 
The Direct group included engineers working at NASA, working on their own time.  They thought it was a good idea, so they must have thought the head office would buy it.
of th

And the "head office" stated numerous time publicly that they thought it was a bad idea.  Griffin did not want any competitors for Ares V funding.

That is not the point.  You claimed that if NASA started over with a clean sheet of paper and no rocket and capsule, it would not go with an HLV.  My point is that is wrong, that the HLV idea is supported within NASA, and Direct is my evidence.

Some parts of NASA are clearly enthusiastic about HLVs.  Other parts are not (and a number of professionals outside of NASA aren't so keen on HLVs either).  Clearly, Congress chose to side with the HLV supporters.  Do you think it's a good idea that it was Congress that made the decision?  Shouldn't the decision* be made by engineers, as was the Apollo mode decision?

* Of course, making a sensible decision implies having particular objectives in first place, but that's another topic.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2014 09:55 am by Proponent »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
As for "where is the lander?"...  Even if the Subcommittee wants a lander quite badly, they don't have the political capital right now to get one funded, partly because the White House interdicted the moon mission idea for no good reason.  And while I'm sure a lot of people at NASA want a moon mission, the top man is a WH appointee and won't go against his boss.

I basically said this, and more, in my post above.

It was Obama who cancelled Altair, along with Ares and Orion.  Congress could only bring back one and a half of them right away, and I think they chose wisely as far as that goes...

If all that's holding back NASA's top line is Bolden's unwillingness to cross Obama, why is it that under Bush II, Griffin's NASA didn't have the money to fund Altair?  Altair is about as live now as it was when Obama entered office.
Actually, both 93143 and Proponent are right. Altair was officially part of Constellation, but it was quickly defunded (not cancelled) because there was no budget for it. So, Altair went into limbo.
When Obama cancelled Constellation, he cancelled the lot: Ares-I, Ares-V, Orion AND Altair. Not that the action changed much for Altair; nobody had been working on it anyway for several years.

U.S. Congress only revived Orion (quickly renamed to MPCV). Some say SLS is an Ares-V re-boot, but I doubt it is that simple.

Funding for exploration vehicles (regardless of them being launchers or spacecraft) is on such a low level that only two at-a-time can be done within the current funding limitations. In short: any funding for landers and the likes will only become available after SLS and Orion are done. Untill that time we may have a launcher and a CSM. Unfortunately with just those two you don't do all that much except perhaps trips around the moon and crew rotation flights to ISS. Exotics like Mars flyby in 2012 are out of the question: no funding for habitat modules as SLS is still in development to reach the 130 MT goal.
U.S. Congress controls the funding (or lack there of) for the United States HSF program. They will have to learn to live with the consequences of their own actions (or lack there of).
« Last Edit: 03/03/2014 10:05 am by woods170 »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Eminently sensible to never loft humans with this launch vehicle

WHY?

Quote
Use the money saved on not manrating it to pay for some payloads worth having.

What money?  How much is it?

If you disagree with the principle that an unmanned rocket, by design, will cost less than a manned rocket, then there is no line of reasoning which will convince you that a cargo SLS would save money, and therefore you will never think it to be "emminently sensible" to never launch humans with SLS.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
If you disagree with the principle that an unmanned rocket, by design, will cost less than a manned rocket, then there is no line of reasoning which will convince you that a cargo SLS would save money, and therefore you will never think it to be "emminently sensible" to never launch humans with SLS.
We aren't trying to man-rate an Ares V here or something. All of the components for SLS are designed to be man-rated from the start, dropping the man-rating requirement with SLS so far in development would likely save little. At least not enough to pay for a reasonable payload.

To HappyMartian: you goofed up your quote. Also, while the law states that NASA should be capable of supporting cis-lunar missions, it nowhere states that the US should land humans on the moon.

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
Not really, that is only lip service.  Where is the lander?    Also, the kludge with the ICPS is not a real mission, just make work.

The space law says NASA will do human international cis-lunar missions and cis-lunar is clearly and legally defined to include the surface of the Moon. The law is not "lip service".

What "space law" are you speaking of?
[/quote


PUBLIC LAW 111–267—OCT. 11, 2010
At: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516655main_PL_111-267.pdf

"An Act To authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and for other purposes."

Page 5 and 6

"SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) A
DMINISTRATOR
.—The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(2) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS
.—The term ‘‘appropriate committees of Congress’’ means—(A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives.
(3) CIS-LUNAR SPACE
.—The term ‘cis-lunar space’ means the region of space from the Earth out to and including the
region around the surface of the Moon."

Page 7,

"TITLE II—POLICY, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES FOR HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT AND EXPLORATION"

And, "(b) UNITED STATES HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT C APABILITIES.—Congress reaffirms the policy stated in section 501(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005
(42 U.S.C. 16761(a)), that the United States shall maintain an uninterrupted capability for human space flight and operations in low-Earth orbit, and beyond, as an essential instrument of national security and of the capacity to ensure continued United States participation and leadership in the exploration and utiliza-
tion of space. "


And Page 8

"SEC. 202. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.
(a) LONG TERM GOAL.—The long term goal of the human space flight and exploration efforts of NASA shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond low-Earth orbit and to do so, where practical, in a manner involving international partners.

(2) to determine if humans can live in an extended manner in space with decreasing reliance on Earth, starting with utilization of low-Earth orbit infrastructure, to identify potential roles that space resources such as energy and materials may play, to meet national and global needs and challenges, such
as potential cataclysmic threats, and to explore the viability of and lay the foundation for sustainable economic activities in space;

(3) to maximize the role that human exploration of space can play in advancing overall knowledge of the universe, supporting United States national and economic security and the United States global competitive posture, and inspiring young people in their educational pursuits; and

(4) to build upon the cooperative and mutually beneficial framework established by the ISS partnership agreements and experience in developing and undertaking programs and meeting objectives designed to realize the goal of human space flight set forth in subsection (a)."

Pages 9 and 10

"TITLE III—EXPANSION OF HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT BEYOND THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND LOW-
EARTH ORBIT
SEC. 301. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT BEYOND LOW-EARTH ORBIT.
(a) 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.

(2) The regions of cis-lunar space are accessible to other national and commercial launch capabilities, and such access raises a host of national security concerns and economic implications that international human space endeavors can help to address.

(3) The ability to support human missions in regions beyond low-Earth orbit and on the surface of the Moon can also drive developments in emerging areas of space infrastructure and technology.

(4) Developments in space infrastructure and technology can stimulate and enable increased space applications, such as in-space servicing, propellant resupply and transfer, and in situ resource utilization, and open opportunities for additional users of space, whether national, commercial, or international.

(5) A long term objective for human exploration of space should be the eventual international exploration of Mars.

(6) Future international missions beyond low-Earth orbit should be designed to incorporate capability development and availability, affordability, and international contributions.

(7) Human space flight and future exploration beyond low-Earth orbit should be based around a pay-as-you-go approach. Requirements in new launch and crew systems authorized in this Act should be scaled to the minimum necessary to meet the core national mission capability needed to conduct cis-lunar missions. These initial missions, along with the development of new technologies and in-space capabilities can form the foundation for missions to other destinations. These initial missions also should provide operational experience prior to the further human expansion into space."


There is a whole lot more to it, but you can get the general direction from the above.

Notice the early definition of cis-lunar space has "including the region around the surface of the Moon" and the emphasis on international missions.

Has NASA's leadership been implementing the law "based around a pay-as-you-go approach" and "The ability to support human missions in regions beyond low-Earth orbit and on the surface of the Moon can also drive developments in emerging areas of space infrastructure and technology" or has NASA's leadership been "employing indecision to allow for" developing a poorly conceived, partisan, risky, and costly Mars road map that somehow doesn't include putting international astronauts on the Moon?

The Red Planet is clearly a long term international goal and the Moon is the short term goal: "A long term objective for human exploration of space should be the eventual international exploration of Mars."
 
Way too many folks, have been belittling and ignoring this law while claiming NASA isn't legally supposed to do international missions on the Moon.

It is this space law that has funded and put the SLS and international Orion into development. Those space exploration tools exemplify: "Requirements in new launch and crew systems authorized in this Act should be scaled to the minimum necessary to meet the core national mission capability needed to conduct cis-lunar missions." 

International cis-lunar human space missions, including human missions to the Moon's surface, would be "supporting United States national and economic security".

Mars, at this time, is considered to have minimal international strategic and economic importance.

NASA planning for beyond LEO human spaceflight has become irrelevant to the real world where our international space exploration partners and other folks are focused on exploring the Moon for useful resources to help reduce space transportation risks and costs while developing the rest of cis-lunar space.

Somehow, for whatever 'reason', partisan Mars fantasies of costly Red Planet missions in the 2040s and 2050s have become far more important and worthy of NASA's planning efforts than is the creation of an affordable bipartisan international plan to develop the Moon's surface and the rest of cis-lunar space during the 2020s and 2030s.

The NASA mission planing cart is rolling wildly, bouncing from side to side, and clearly escaping logical control as it proceeds far out in front of the economy and bipartisan Congressional horses that need to be running ahead and pulling hard.     

The Earth is in the center of cis-lunar space, and America and the rest of the world will benefit in many ways from international missions to develop our neighborhood in space, which unbeknownst to some partisan White House leadership folks, includes the Moon and its ice and other resources.

AKA Congress's favorite toy, the Unfunded Mandate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfunded_mandate

Like beating your wife for not buying groceries when you spent the last of the money on alcohol.

"I told you to build that moon base, now I am going to have to teach you a lesson"

« Last Edit: 03/03/2014 03:10 pm by SpacexULA »
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290

AKA Congress's favorite toy, the Unfunded Mandate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfunded_mandate

Like beating your wife for not buying groceries when you spent the last of the money on alcohol.

"I told you to build that moon base, now I am going to have to teach you a lesson"
It wasn't really a requirement for a lunar base, it was a really vague direction towards "cislunar space". And SLS and Orion can do "cislunar space", and they're funded.

Also, that analogy was way darker than necessary...

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115

AKA Congress's favorite toy, the Unfunded Mandate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfunded_mandate

Like beating your wife for not buying groceries when you spent the last of the money on alcohol.

"I told you to build that moon base, now I am going to have to teach you a lesson"
It wasn't really a requirement for a lunar base, it was a really vague direction towards "cislunar space". And SLS and Orion can do "cislunar space", and they're funded.

Also, that analogy was way darker than necessary...
I prefer Jeff Greason's "baby wants his rattle back" analogy.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1637/1
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Not really, that is only lip service.  Where is the lander?    Also, the kludge with the ICPS is not a real mission, just make work.


The space law says NASA will do human international cis-lunar missions and cis-lunar is clearly and legally defined to include the surface of the Moon. The law is not "lip service".

What "space law" are you speaking of?


PUBLIC LAW 111–267—OCT. 11, 2010
At: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516655main_PL_111-267.pdf

"An Act To authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and for other purposes."

[MASSIVE SNIP]

I love how people quote congressional appropriations and funding laws as if they were natural laws that had any bearing beyond the years they apply to. They don't. The "laws" (in a loose sense) that created Constellation are now not worth the paper they are printed on. And that's just one example.

In addition, no Congress can bind the actions of a future Congress.

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Not really, that is only lip service.  Where is the lander?    Also, the kludge with the ICPS is not a real mission, just make work.


The space law says NASA will do human international cis-lunar missions and cis-lunar is clearly and legally defined to include the surface of the Moon. The law is not "lip service".

What "space law" are you speaking of?


PUBLIC LAW 111–267—OCT. 11, 2010
At: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516655main_PL_111-267.pdf

"An Act To authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and for other purposes."

[MASSIVE SNIP]

I love how people quote congressional appropriations and funding laws as if they were natural laws that had any bearing beyond the years they apply to. They don't. The "laws" (in a loose sense) that created Constellation are now not worth the paper they are printed on. And that's just one example.

In addition, no Congress can bind the actions of a future Congress.

Sad but true. Yet we have spent hundreds of pages debating why they haven't done anything. The cause is pretty clear to me.

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 5
And my "guess" was that NASA would have reached that conclusion after they reassessed their future needs. 
The Direct group included engineers working at NASA, working on their own time.  They thought it was a good idea, so they must have thought the head office would buy it.
of th

And the "head office" stated numerous time publicly that they thought it was a bad idea.  Griffin did not want any competitors for Ares V funding.

That is not the point.  You claimed that if NASA started over with a clean sheet of paper and no rocket and capsule, it would not go with an HLV.  My point is that is wrong, that the HLV idea is supported within NASA, and Direct is my evidence.

Some parts of NASA are clearly enthusiastic about HLVs.  Other parts are not....

So it would be more accurate to say that some in NASA didn't want it, as opposed to claiming there were no HLV supporters in NASA at all.  And as I have pointed out already, President Obama had wanted a new HLV in his FY2011 plan. 

Quote
.... Do you think it's a good idea that it was Congress that made the decision?  Shouldn't the decision* be made by engineers, as was the Apollo mode decision?

Ironic, as that mode involved an HLV.   But it would have been academic if a politician had not decided to go the Moon for political reasons.

"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
If you disagree with the principle that an unmanned rocket, by design, will cost less than a manned rocket, then there is no line of reasoning which will convince you that a cargo SLS would save money, and therefore you will never think it to be "emminently sensible" to never launch humans with SLS.
We aren't trying to man-rate an Ares V here or something. All of the components for SLS are designed to be man-rated from the start, dropping the man-rating requirement with SLS so far in development would likely save little. At least not enough to pay for a reasonable payload.

To HappyMartian: you goofed up your quote. Also, while the law states that NASA should be capable of supporting cis-lunar missions, it nowhere states that the US should land humans on the moon.


The law states the international development of cis-lunar space on a pay as you go basis with minimalistic tools is the initial national security priority and that the Moon is a part of cis-lunar space.

Mars is stated to be "(5) A long term objective for human exploration of space should be the eventual international exploration of Mars."

PUBLIC LAW 111–267—OCT. 11, 2010 was the last clear Congressional bipartisan legal direction given to NASA.

It is available at: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516655main_PL_111-267.pdf

"An Act To authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and for other purposes."

Note the "other purposes".

The law states "Congress reaffirms the policy stated in section 501(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16761(a)), that the United States shall maintain an uninterrupted capability for human space flight and operations in low-Earth orbit, and beyond, as an essential instrument of national security and of the capacity to ensure continued United States participation and leadership in the exploration and utilization of space."

Note the words "essential instrument of national security" and "leadership". NASA not making plans on how to lead international missions to the Moon means NASA is giving up on its leadership of the international community that is focused on the Moon.

NASA avoiding making Lunar exploration plans on the basis of the BTDT whims of a partisan President makes zip sense. Members of Congress can be in office for decades. Presidents have a limited tenure. Presidents propose, Congress decides what missions to fund.

Leading international human surface missions means that other folks will need to provide the Landers. Too many people are wearing blinders in thinking that the USA taxpayer must provide the Lander.

If folks want the benefits of the Moon, they have to invest in the Moon.

Other folks, including American businesses, can go to the Moon with NASA if they invest in building or buying a Lander. 

Too many folks are claiming the NASA money sky is falling when it isn't.

NASA is making good progress on building the affordable minimalistic real tools needed to get international crews on the Lunar surface.

Unfortunately, Presidential whims have kept NASA from working with businesses, NGOs, and our international space exploration partners to make specific plans for those missions. 
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 5

PUBLIC LAW 111–267—OCT. 11, 2010 was the last clear Congressional bipartisan legal direction given to NASA.

It is available at: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516655main_PL_111-267.pdf

"An Act To authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and for other purposes."

Note the "other purposes".

The law states "Congress reaffirms the policy stated in section 501(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16761(a)), that the United States shall maintain an uninterrupted capability for human space flight and operations in low-Earth orbit, and beyond, as an essential instrument of national security and of the capacity to ensure continued United States participation and leadership in the exploration and utilization of space."

Note the words "essential instrument of national security" and "leadership". NASA not making plans on how to lead international missions to the Moon means NASA ....

Does not run counter to the law.  I skimmed it and found that while different sections mention operating on the Moon, it does not explicitly call for a Moon mission.
Quote
......BTDT whims of a partisan President .....


President Obama was not the first to take the BTDT attitude towards the Moon.  During Constellation, critics made the BTDT argment and called for NASA to go to an asteroid and/or Mars instead.makes zip sense. The president just listened to them.

That where we go can be a partisan argument is one of the reasons the situation is a mess.

"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2

PUBLIC LAW 111–267—OCT. 11, 2010 was the last clear Congressional bipartisan legal direction given to NASA.

It is available at: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516655main_PL_111-267.pdf

"An Act To authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and for other purposes."

Note the "other purposes".

The law states "Congress reaffirms the policy stated in section 501(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16761(a)), that the United States shall maintain an uninterrupted capability for human space flight and operations in low-Earth orbit, and beyond, as an essential instrument of national security and of the capacity to ensure continued United States participation and leadership in the exploration and utilization of space."

Note the words "essential instrument of national security" and "leadership". NASA not making plans on how to lead international missions to the Moon means NASA ....

Does not run counter to the law.  I skimmed it and found that while different sections mention operating on the Moon, it does not explicitly call for a Moon mission.
Quote
......BTDT whims of a partisan President .....


President Obama was not the first to take the BTDT attitude towards the Moon.  During Constellation, critics made the BTDT argment and called for NASA to go to an asteroid and/or Mars instead.makes zip sense. The president just listened to them.

That where we go can be a partisan argument is one of the reasons the situation is a mess.


The reason that NASA is vaguely spinning its planning wheels is that the President 'cancelled' the widely accepted and logical beyond low Earth orbit human spaceflight Lunar missions goal that was and still is the main short term bipartisan and international focus and he was unable to conceive of and implement any other meaningful human spaceflight mission focus that appealed to our cost-conscious international space exploration partners and Congress.

Destroying a widely accepted Lunar exploration and ISRU plan was not really doable and convincing others of the basic utility and wisdom of some other human spaceflight goal has been impossible.

A wise leader has an obviously great plan that is doable, affordable, bipartisan, and logically appealing before he or she tries to tear up a widely accepted and logical plan that has broad Congressional and international support.

When Presidents make big mistakes, Congress sooner or later simply avoids funding the mistake and quietly funds a substitute plan. 

We are going to the Moon with our SLS HLV and our international Lunar mission Orion spacecraft.

And we will eventually use Lunar resources to lower the large risks and costs of cis-lunar spaceflights.

The Moon and cis-lunar space have strategic and economic importance.

Mars fantasies do not currently have strategic and economic importance to America and the world.

Some folks might want to get used to these basic ideas.


Edited.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 12:00 pm by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
When Presidents make big mistakes, Congress sooner or later simply avoids funding the mistake and quietly funds a substitute plan. 

What are your examples of this? Note that "despite" your repeated arguments that President Obama's ENTIRE space policy is a mistake, Congress is NOT funding a "substitute" plan of any sort and is NOT in fact making any effort to motivate or fund NASA BLEO work. Please note that previous "laws" such as you keep quoteing have in fact called for "expansion of humans into the Solar System," Space Colonies, Solar Power Satellites, "cheap-and-safe-access-to-orbit" and about a dozen other "requirements" that were subsequently NOT supported or funded by Congress after they "mandated" them into law. You have as yet still failed to show any reason or evidence that the current "law" is any different from previous legislation that said much but did little.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Just ignore HappyMartian. He ignores posts containing points that he cannot counter.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 02:35 pm by Lars_J »

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Just ignore HappyMartian. He ignores posts containing points that he cannot counter.

I dont' know... There is a kind of refreshing (albeit frustrating) "naive innocence" in his continued belief in Congress despite decades of fundamental proof otherwise :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 5
The reason that NASA is vaguely spinning its planning wheels is that the President 'cancelled' the widely accepted and logical beyond low Earth orbit human spaceflight Lunar missions goal...

I half agree with you: Taking the Moon off the list of targets does seem to have made things more complicated. That's part of where the asteroid redirect mission comes from: We can't go much farther than the Moon, but POTUS doesn't want to land there, so what do we do?  At times it seems easier said than done, but that doesn't mean we can't pull it off.

That said, lurching from "Moon" to "not Moon" and back only messes things up more, because some things have to be stopped and restarted again. We can't keep doing it and expect to accomplish anything.  And the asteroid mission, if successful, will knock people's socks off when the live images come back.  At some point you have to work with what you have.

But I don't agree that Constellation was widely accepted.  There was a lot of controversy.  You have only to look at the current bifurcated HSF program to see what critics said we should be doing instead.  And I think there would be resistance to going back that way again.



"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
President Obama was not the first to take the BTDT attitude towards the Moon.  During Constellation, critics made the BTDT argment and called for NASA to go to an asteroid and/or Mars instead.makes zip sense. The president just listened to them.

My hypothesis is that Obama's BTDT comment about the moon was driven by the need to find a mission that might be affordable.  Because of the need for a lander, returning to the moon required more money for NASA than could be obtained without spending some serious political capital.  About that time, though, Lockheed Martin was promoting a dual-Orion NEA mission (part of its Stepping Stones proposal, attached.  That would have kept development costs down by eliminating the need for a separate hab module.  And the doctors hadn't yet ruled out six-to-eight-month BEO missions.  So, an NEA mission may have seemed like the one mission that was actually possible.

As I say, this is only a hypothesis -- it is, after all, very difficult to truly ascertain people's motives -- and is likely more susceptible be being disproved than being proved.  So I'd be interested in hearing any evidence against it.

EDIT:  Eliminated extraneous comma.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 09:09 pm by Proponent »

Offline darkbluenine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 51
SpaceX's web site does not show them working on anything with the payload range of SLS

SpaceX publicly offered to build a 150t LV for a fixed price of $2.5B a couple years ago.  More recently, their new LOX/CH4 engine has been revealed to be in the 1Mlbf range and designed for a LV that can put 100t on a Mars trajectory.  I'm sure someone who knows the SpaceX boards here (I don't) could point you to the right threads.

Quote
ULA is a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed, both of which have contracts with SLS and Orion.  It's unlikely they will undercut themselves

Of course ULA doesn't do anything on that scale without a government contract.  They would have to be paid to do develop an HLV, just like SLS isn't a charity project for Boeing.

That said, one of ULA's parent companies bilking the taxpayer for all they can on an expensive, duplicate LV is not a good reason to continue building said LV.  Just the opposite.

Quote
which might explain why the Atlas V/Delta IV product card no longer shows the Saturn V class growth versions of those rockets.

Papers at the ULA website quote $2.6B plus inflation for a 70t, EELV Phase 2 development.

Quote
We can tut-tut lunar free return missions or parking at LaGrange points, but when those missions fly and crews are sending back images of Earth from that far away, the general pubic will be awed.

Most of the public doesn't even know that we have a space station.  And even if they were paying attention, it's a dubious proposition that most taxpayers are willing to pony up several tens of billions of dollars for pictures taken by astronauts that even the beleaguered Triana/Goresat can deliver for a one-hundredth of the cost.

Quote
And the Next Big Thing after Shuttle and ISS?  An outpost at L2 (or L5 if you want to attract the O'Neill people).

There's no money to start development of this for at least the next decade (thru 2024), and even if there was, the White House ARM mission and the House Mars flyby are both ahead in the queue.

Quote
If there is thinking behind SLS/Orion, it's to replicate what kinda sorta worked out with the Shuttle....only a thousand times as far from the Earth as Shuttle went.

STS/ISS is a very bad model.  We don't need to spend another decade-and-a-half flying in circles on a super-expensive, fragile space transportation system while yet another space station gets redesigned a dozen times only to spend another decade-and-a-half struggling to get that station deployed while ignoring how it could actually be utilized.

Given the huge costs to the taxpayer and to other NASA opportunities, NASA's flagship human space flight programs need to work really well, not “kinda sorta”.  The "kinda sorta" approach is killing us.

Yes, Hubble and the shuttle were intricately tied together.  According to Wikipedia, NASA's budget in 1968 was 2.65% of the overall federal budget.  If you swing that money for NASA again, I can promise you there will be robust missions for SLS, too.  There'd probably be enough to swing science missions like the Ares V report mentioned, maybe even Northrop Grumman's proposals for 10m / 17m / 21m / 24m really large space telescopes.  Sigh.

We have to stop wishing for old budgets that will never exist going forward.  It's far past time to manage within the budgets we are given and that we can foresee.  That means we can't spend 99.9% of our human space exploration budget just getting up and down through the Earth's atmosphere.  That's not human space exploration.

Quote
Put it differently:  the shuttle at one point had as its purpose to suck up every US launch.  It had payloads designed for it because every payload planned to go into space during that time period was targeted for the shuttle.  That makes it a poor comparison.

I agree that milsats and comsats that had no need for astronauts in the loop were railroaded onto STS when they shouldn't have been.  I wouldn't do that for SLS, either.

But that doesn't change the fact that HST, Spacelab, LDEF, and other payloads/missions were developed expressly to take advantage of unique STS capabilities and that they were developed concurrently with STS.  As Jim has pointed out, the same is true of other LVs.  Again, SLS/MPCV are outliers in this regard, not the norm.  Real payload and mission development for SLS/MPCV should be well underway with the corresponding budgets. 
It's not.

Quote
Ah, here's the bait-and-switch.  You argue above that the problem with SLS is lack of a mission, but now you are going to substitute your preferred alternative and assume a mission.

There's no bait-and-switch.  My preferred alternative would be an STS-derived LV, too.

But I also realize that the STS-derived LVs are no longer competitive, by practically an order of magnitude, with other options available to the nation.  That's independent of whether Falcon- or EELV-derived HLVs would have a mission, too.  If we're going to waste billions of taxpayer dollars developing an HLV that never gets used for its intended purpose, then I'd rather waste $2B+ on a Falcon- or EELV-derived HLV, not $20B+ on a STS-derived HLV.

And regardless of competition, I also realize that STS-derived systems are not affordable within NASA’s human space exploration budget if we want some portion of that budget to go to actual exploration hardware development. 

Quote
If NASA's budget doesn't even stay level in constant dollars as was assumed in the design of SLS/MPCV, then commercial launchers won't be doing much for NASA either at some point.  Commercial LVs don't fix declining budgets,

NASA’s budget is relatively flat, but it’s not approaching zero purchasing power anytime soon, either.  The problem is not a lack of inflationary budget increases, but the fact that practically the entire human space exploration budget is going to ETO transport, not exploration, and will do so through 2024, at least. 

Quote
If we're wishing for ponies, I'm going to wish one for SLS too, so it gets an assumed mission.  Poof!

NASA's decision makers can’t even have an intelligent conversation about SLS/MPCV targets and missions because there is no budget from which to fund the payloads and mission hardware.  SLS/MPCV use up practically all of the available budget for a decade or more.

With other LVs, they can have the discussion and plan intelligently within the profile of the kind of budgets NASA is projected to have.

There are ponies and then there are unicorns.  SLS/MPCV costs turn exploration ponies into unicorns.  With other LVs, NASA's decision makers can afford to buy some exploration ponies within realistic budgets.

Quote
they don't fix the lack of clearly defined missions… They don't fix the space community's division, such that moon missions are attacked as dead end or not worth it, asteroid missions are attacked as ho-hum and not worthy, and Mars missions as too far out or too ambitious.

The lack of missions doesn’t come from divisiveness in any space community.  No one in the White House or Congress pays attention to the NSS or Planetary Society.

The lack of missions comes from the high cost of our chosen ETO path and the resulting lack of budget for developing exploration hardware.  Since Constellation started, NASA has had no opportunity to plan a reasonable exploration campaign using an affordable LV and capsule with a significant budget to develop actual exploration payloads.  Altair got zeroed out due to spiraling Ares I/Orion costs, and with no budget for exploration hardware, SLS/MPCV can only afford to repeat Apollo 8, too.  SLS/MPCV also can’t afford to develop a deep space hab, so an actual manned mission to a NEO can’t be executed, and NASA has had to latch onto the robotic ARM kludge in place of what should be a manned mission.  The SLS flight rate is too low for the IMLEO to support a Mars DRM, so one congressional subcommittee is now desperately grasping at a private Mars flyby mission.
 
With an affordable LV/capsule, there would be no need to wander in the wilderness trying to fit these half-measures into a near-zero budget for actual exploration hardware development and missions. 

Quote
and they don't fix the desire of Congress to have happy constituents… In particular, you need to think how you would pitch this to Senator Shelby (AL), whose constituents include MSFC employees.  How do you manage the political fallout for Marshall and for him?... Rep. Palazzo whose constituents include Stennis workers is the House Space Subcommittee Chairman.  I don't see how your proposal works for him, either.

Appeasing venal, rent-seeking politicians is never a good foundation for policymaking or program formulation (space or otherwise).

That said, this is about more than freeing up budget.  It’s also about freeing up engineering talent and human resources.  The people working SLS/MPCV today are needed to work the transit stages, mission/hab modules, landers, EDL systems, rovers, etc. in a real human space exploration program.

If we retired SLS in favor of other LVs, there’s no reason to believe that the workforce at MSFC/SSC would not continue to be fully employed developing and testing engines for transit stages and landers, and MSFC itself would be the logical choice for managing and developing overall transit stages.

(Also, it’s worth pointing out that if a switch away from SLS resulted in more business for ULA, that certainly means continued LV engine, development, and production business for Alabama, and maybe SSC, too.)

More than the taxpayer and budget dollars wasted, this is perhaps the biggest tragedy of the past decade.  Thousands of careers and untold talent have been wasted on uncompetitive and almost unaffordable ETO systems that have variously been cancelled or face pointless futures, when that workforce and institution could have been applied to the in-space exploration hardware that no one else is building or pursuing.

It’s not an “either NASA or commercial” question.  It’s a “what does government do best and what does industry do best” question.  Any kid in government policy 101 could tell us the answer, but we’ve screwed up this test royally for a decade, and until we get it right, we’ll continue to wander in the wilderness.

Quote
Is it unfair if I ask whether you currently work for one of the companies you are fervently arguing we throw billions of dollars toward?

Nope, I’ve never worked for or at an LV company.  Done two tours with NASA, and worked STS during Columbia.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 08:28 pm by darkbluenine »

Tags:
 

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