Author Topic: NASA to split leadership of its human spaceflight program (Sept 21 2021)  (Read 30646 times)

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 2204
  • Likes Given: 818
IMO SLS and Orion will be around for a long time to come. Regardless of whatever Starship does.

it won't

So you of all people think Starship will get SLS/Orion canceled? Unless I'm misinterpreting you.
LEO is the ocean, not an island (let alone a continent). We create cruise liners to ride the oceans, not artificial islands in the middle of them. We need a physical place, which has physical resources, to make our future out there.

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 182
SLS is getting itself cancelled all by itself due to delays and its astronomical cost. Orion may has some life left as a Govt. spacecraft if they chuck it onto a different launcher.

Starship is just showing everyone where the industry should have been 50 years ago and making the flaws with SLS so much more visible.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9329
  • Likes Given: 39
Terrible decision IMO. You don't reward one of your most successful employees with a demotion, especially right after another commercial crew related triumph (Inspiration4).

It is not a demotion.  The office had to much on its plate

and "melding the best of NASA and commercial space to create real progress on deep space exploration." won't work on SLS or Orion.  Different contracts.

Well of course it "won't work" the idea is to eventually discontinue SLS and Orion. Now that Kathy is removed that's no longer on the plate.
The decision as to whether SLS & Orion live or die has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone employed at NASA. They have zero say in the matter: SLS (as with Constellation before it) and Orion were born by the hand of congress, they can only die by the hand of congress.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18201
  • Likes Given: 12162
Terrible decision IMO. You don't reward one of your most successful employees with a demotion, especially right after another commercial crew related triumph (Inspiration4).

It is not a demotion.  The office had to much on its plate

and "melding the best of NASA and commercial space to create real progress on deep space exploration." won't work on SLS or Orion.  Different contracts.

Well of course it "won't work" the idea is to eventually discontinue SLS and Orion. Now that Kathy is removed that's no longer on the plate.
The decision as to whether SLS & Orion live or die has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone employed at NASA. They have zero say in the matter: SLS (as with Constellation before it) and Orion were born by the hand of congress, they can only die by the hand of congress.

Exactly.

And as long as US Congress is OK with shoveling funding to the SLS/Orion contractors, the SLS and Orion will keep sticking around.
Starship won't change that IMO because US Congress is not "in" on Starship. It has no vested interest in Starship. But US Congress very much HAS a vested interest in SLS and Orion. Something that lots of people, including quite a few members of this forum, keep overlooking.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18201
  • Likes Given: 12162
IMO SLS and Orion will be around for a long time to come. Regardless of whatever Starship does.

it won't

So you of all people think Starship will get SLS/Orion canceled? Unless I'm misinterpreting you.

You are not misinterpreting him.
Jim has been a known opponent of SLS from Day 1. Which is perfectly OK, because SLS makes no sense IMO, except to US Congress.

But expecting the rise of Starship to somehow lead to cancellation of SLS is equal to a basic misunderstanding of why SLS exists in the first place.

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 2204
  • Likes Given: 818
Terrible decision IMO. You don't reward one of your most successful employees with a demotion, especially right after another commercial crew related triumph (Inspiration4).

It is not a demotion.  The office had to much on its plate

and "melding the best of NASA and commercial space to create real progress on deep space exploration." won't work on SLS or Orion.  Different contracts.

Well of course it "won't work" the idea is to eventually discontinue SLS and Orion. Now that Kathy is removed that's no longer on the plate.
The decision as to whether SLS & Orion live or die has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone employed at NASA. They have zero say in the matter: SLS (as with Constellation before it) and Orion were born by the hand of congress, they can only die by the hand of congress.

Exactly.

And as long as US Congress is OK with shoveling funding to the SLS/Orion contractors, the SLS and Orion will keep sticking around.
Starship won't change that IMO because US Congress is not "in" on Starship. It has no vested interest in Starship. But US Congress very much HAS a vested interest in SLS and Orion. Something that lots of people, including quite a few members of this forum, keep overlooking.

I agree with the post you're responding to but I think you take that interpretation too far. Starship definitely has an effect on whether US Congress is "OK" with shoveling funding to the SLS/Orion contractors. I don't have any belief that the majority of congresscritters are actually for SLS/Orion, they're just not against it so the minority that is for it has no real competition. Once there is a suitable alternative to it then there can be congresscritters from other states who have no stake in the matter to want to push that minority to change their minds. Those congresscritters will want to take funds from SLS/Orion for their own projects because there will be a legitimate argument that SLS/Orion is a "waste of taxpayer money". That money will likely not be returned to NASA however and may end up reducing NASA's budget.

SpaceX also notably has large amounts of business in the three largest states (by population and congresscritters) representing 1/5th of all representatives.
« Last Edit: 09/25/2021 04:25 pm by mlindner »
LEO is the ocean, not an island (let alone a continent). We create cruise liners to ride the oceans, not artificial islands in the middle of them. We need a physical place, which has physical resources, to make our future out there.

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4433
Terrible decision IMO. You don't reward one of your most successful employees with a demotion, especially right after another commercial crew related triumph (Inspiration4).

It is not a demotion.  The office had to much on its plate

and "melding the best of NASA and commercial space to create real progress on deep space exploration." won't work on SLS or Orion.  Different contracts.

Well of course it "won't work" the idea is to eventually discontinue SLS and Orion. Now that Kathy is removed that's no longer on the plate.
The decision as to whether SLS & Orion live or die has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone employed at NASA. They have zero say in the matter: SLS (as with Constellation before it) and Orion were born by the hand of congress, they can only die by the hand of congress.

Exactly.

And as long as US Congress is OK with shoveling funding to the SLS/Orion contractors, the SLS and Orion will keep sticking around.
Starship won't change that IMO because US Congress is not "in" on Starship. It has no vested interest in Starship. But US Congress very much HAS a vested interest in SLS and Orion. Something that lots of people, including quite a few members of this forum, keep overlooking.

I agree with the post you're responding to but I think you take that interpretation too far. Starship definitely has an effect on whether US Congress is "OK" with shoveling funding to the SLS/Orion contractors. I don't have any belief that the majority of congresscritters are actually for SLS/Orion, they're just not against it so the minority that is for it has no real competition. Once there is a suitable alternative to it then there can be congresscritters from other states who have no stake in the matter to want to push that minority to change their minds. Those congresscritters will want to take funds from SLS/Orion for their own projects because there will be a legitimate argument that SLS/Orion is a "waste of taxpayer money". That money will likely not be returned to NASA however and may end up reducing NASA's budget.

SpaceX also notably has large amounts of business in the three largest states (by population and congresscritters) representing 1/5th of all representatives.

History would suggest you are correct – the 'waste of taxpayer money' outrage/crusade has occurred before – but I don't think it's possible in our current political environment. A signal/noise problem.

Political debate is so tonally overheated, how could any argument of overspending at NASA even be seen? This is a $25B rocket program, funded slowly and steadily over more than a decade. Congress just bumped the pentagon's annual budget by that amount. "SLS iz bad must fix" stands no chance in light of the political divisiveness and multi-trillion $ bills under debate today.


edit: just noticed the thread title... tangent attack, we've gone terribly off-topic here – mea culpa
« Last Edit: 09/25/2021 04:55 pm by dglow »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Terrible decision IMO. You don't reward one of your most successful employees with a demotion, especially right after another commercial crew related triumph (Inspiration4).

It is not a demotion.  The office had to much on its plate

and "melding the best of NASA and commercial space to create real progress on deep space exploration." won't work on SLS or Orion.  Different contracts.

Well of course it "won't work" the idea is to eventually discontinue SLS and Orion. Now that Kathy is removed that's no longer on the plate.
The decision as to whether SLS & Orion live or die has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone employed at NASA. They have zero say in the matter: SLS (as with Constellation before it) and Orion were born by the hand of congress, they can only die by the hand of congress.

Exactly.

And as long as US Congress is OK with shoveling funding to the SLS/Orion contractors, the SLS and Orion will keep sticking around.
Starship won't change that IMO because US Congress is not "in" on Starship. It has no vested interest in Starship. But US Congress very much HAS a vested interest in SLS and Orion. Something that lots of people, including quite a few members of this forum, keep overlooking.

I agree with the post you're responding to but I think you take that interpretation too far. Starship definitely has an effect on whether US Congress is "OK" with shoveling funding to the SLS/Orion contractors. I don't have any belief that the majority of congresscritters are actually for SLS/Orion, they're just not against it so the minority that is for it has no real competition. Once there is a suitable alternative to it then there can be congresscritters from other states who have no stake in the matter to want to push that minority to change their minds. Those congresscritters will want to take funds from SLS/Orion for their own projects because there will be a legitimate argument that SLS/Orion is a "waste of taxpayer money". That money will likely not be returned to NASA however and may end up reducing NASA's budget.

SpaceX also notably has large amounts of business in the three largest states (by population and congresscritters) representing 1/5th of all representatives.

History would suggest you are correct – the 'waste of taxpayer money' outrage/crusade has occurred before – but I don't think it's possible in our current political environment. A signal/noise problem.

Political debate is so tonally overheated, how could any argument of overspending at NASA even be seen? This is a $25B rocket program, funded slowly and steadily over more than a decade. Congress just bumped the pentagon's annual budget by that amount. "SLS iz bad must fix" stands no chance in light of the political divisiveness and multi-trillion $ bills under debate today.


edit: just noticed the thread title... tangent attack, we've gone terribly off-topic here – mea culpa

When it comes to SLS (and NASA in general), there is very little division in Congress, it has broad bipartisan support. The division has historically between the President (less inclined to support pork) and Congress (very inclined to support pork). But I wouldn't expect Senator Nelson to challenge SLS. Once Starship is regularly flying crew, things might change but until then, SLS and Orion are safe.   
« Last Edit: 09/25/2021 05:55 pm by yg1968 »

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9329
  • Likes Given: 39
When it comes to SLS (and NASA in general), there is very little division in Congress, it has broad bipartisan support.
It's more that there is broad support for the handful of congresscritters who are very strongly in favour of SLS and Orion (or rather, very strongly in favour of projects that employ people in their states, which currently happens to be SLS and Orion, but was previously Constellation, and before that STS, and before that...). The vast majority don't particularly care one way or the other, but will back those staunch supporters - and thus SLS - in exchange for support for their pet projects. A change in that small number of staunch supports* and the 'broad support' for SLS can evaporate in an instant, due to that majority not really actually caring about the project beyond its utility as a political trading card.

*Either a change of heart to some other project that protects those same jobs, a change in elected representative to someone who does not think they need to rely on protecting those jobs for votes, or a new small group of staunch supporters of a completely different project that can offer even better quid-pro-quo.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
When it comes to SLS (and NASA in general), there is very little division in Congress, it has broad bipartisan support.
It's more that there is broad support for the handful of congresscritters who are very strongly in favour of SLS and Orion (or rather, very strongly in favour of projects that employ people in their states, which currently happens to be SLS and Orion, but was previously Constellation, and before that STS, and before that...). The vast majority don't particularly care one way or the other, but will back those staunch supporters - and thus SLS - in exchange for support for their pet projects. A change in that small number of staunch supports* and the 'broad support' for SLS can evaporate in an instant, due to that majority not really actually caring about the project beyond its utility as a political trading card.

*Either a change of heart to some other project that protects those same jobs, a change in elected representative to someone who does not think they need to rely on protecting those jobs for votes, or a new small group of staunch supporters of a completely different project that can offer even better quid-pro-quo.

I agree but usually the people that care about SLS are the ones that are on the relevant committees: Aderholt, Johnson, etc. The people in Congress that don't care are on other committees.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2021 01:36 pm by yg1968 »

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2459
  • Liked: 2412
  • Likes Given: 10226
Sometimes the committees aren't the ones who write the spending bills.  For instance, the Reconciliation Conference may be the ones who write the omnibus spending bill this year.  Or, more precisely, the hand-picked democratic members of the Reconciliation Conference may write the omnibus spending bill this year.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2021 02:06 pm by RedLineTrain »

Offline Markstark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Liked: 457
  • Likes Given: 83
Back to the topic. This was in the works since at least 2018. Snip from the 2018 NASA Strategic Plan

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Back to the topic. This was in the works since at least 2018. Snip from the 2018 NASA Strategic Plan

As pointed out by Marcia Smith, the key difference this time is that STMD isn't being eliminated or merged into another directorate.

Congress wasn't too happy with Bridenstine's attempt to eliminate STMD:
https://spacenews.com/sirangelo-leaves-nasa-after-exploration-reorganization-scrapped/
« Last Edit: 09/27/2021 02:01 am by yg1968 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18201
  • Likes Given: 12162
Back to the topic. This was in the works since at least 2018. Snip from the 2018 NASA Strategic Plan

As pointed out by Marcia Smith, the key difference this time is that STMD isn't being eliminated or merged into another directorate.

Congress wasn't too happy with Bridenstine's attempt to eliminate STMD:
https://spacenews.com/sirangelo-leaves-nasa-after-exploration-reorganization-scrapped/

Emphasis mine.

And that's why Congress intervened in early 2019, by threatening to pull some budget strings.
The proposed 2018 reorganisation intended to take 2 directorates and shuffle them into 2 different directorates.

This time the reorganisation merely reverses the 2011 creation of HEOMD from the then-existing Space Operations Mission Directorate and Exploration Systems Mission Directorate.

2011:
Space Operations Mission Directorate
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate

2021:
Space Operations Mission Directorate
Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate

So, a fundamentally different reorganisation from the one planned in 2018. That's why I think the 2021 reorganisation has NO roots in what was proposed in 2018.
The 2018 proposed reorganisation was about improving efficiency by redistributing the contents of the existing portfolios in a more efficient manner.
The 2021 reorganisation is about reducing workload for the top dog, by splitting it over two top dogs. But efficiency will not be improved. On the contrary: it will be reduced IMO, by the creation of organisational "walls" between teams that, for the past ten years, all belonged to the same directorate. There is going to be additional bureaucracy where there previously was less.
« Last Edit: 09/27/2021 07:45 am by woods170 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
As pointed out by Marcia Smith, the key difference this time is that STMD isn't being eliminated or merged into another directorate.

Congress wasn't too happy with Bridenstine's attempt to eliminate STMD:
https://spacenews.com/sirangelo-leaves-nasa-after-exploration-reorganization-scrapped/

Emphasis mine.

And that's why Congress intervened in early 2019, by threatening to pull some budget strings.
The proposed 2018 reorganisation intended to take 2 directorates and shuffle them into 2 different directorates.

This time the reorganisation merely reverses the 2011 creation of HEOMD from the then-existing Space Operations Mission Directorate and Exploration Systems Mission Directorate.

2011:
Space Operations Mission Directorate
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate

2021:
Space Operations Mission Directorate
Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate

So, a fundamentally different reorganisation from the one planned in 2018. That's why I think the 2021 reorganisation has NO roots in what was proposed in 2018.
The 2018 proposed reorganisation was about improving efficiency by redistributing the contents of the existing portfolios in a more efficient manner.
The 2021 reorganisation is about reducing workload for the top dog, by splitting it over two top dogs. But efficiency will not be improved. On the contrary: it will be reduced IMO, by the creation of organisational "walls" between teams that, for the past ten years, all belonged to the same directorate. There is going to be additional bureaucracy where there previously was less.

There something to be said for keeping STMD separate. If it was merged with the exploration directorate, the funding for technology would just be used as a slush fund for Artemis (which is essentially what happened for Constellation under Mike Griffin).

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Sometimes the committees aren't the ones who write the spending bills.  For instance, the Reconciliation Conference may be the ones who write the omnibus spending bill this year.  Or, more precisely, the hand-picked democratic members of the Reconciliation Conference may write the omnibus spending bill this year.

Reconciliation and the Appropriations bills are two different things. To my knowledge, the FY22 Appropriations bills are still handled by the various appropriations committees. For example, the CJS Appropriations bill is still chaired by Senator Shaheen.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53546.msg2293147#msg2293147
« Last Edit: 09/27/2021 07:10 pm by yg1968 »

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2459
  • Liked: 2412
  • Likes Given: 10226
Sometimes the committees aren't the ones who write the spending bills.  For instance, the Reconciliation Conference may be the ones who write the omnibus spending bill this year.  Or, more precisely, the hand-picked democratic members of the Reconciliation Conference may write the omnibus spending bill this year.

Reconciliation and the Appropriations bills are two different things. To my knowledge, the FY22 Appropriations bills are still handled by the various appropriations committees. For example, the CJS Appropriations bill is still chaired by Senator Shaheen.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53546.msg2293147#msg2293147

Perhaps we are talking about different things.  A Reconciliation Conference is held by a committee of Senators and House members that reconciles any differences between a bill that it passed by the House with the one passed by the Senate.  Some bills are so-called "written in conference" because the final result may not bear much resemblance to the original bills.  So an appropriations bill may be written into law that in part disregards the work of the appropriations committees.

As I understand it, appropriations bills usually are not written in conference because there are special rules for the conference.  But there are various ways that the power of the individual appropriations committees/subcommittees and their members can be reduced.

Separate from this is the $3.5 billion reconciliation bill that is coming up for a vote soon.  Ironically, the reconciliation bill may in fact be written in the Reconciliation Conference.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Sometimes the committees aren't the ones who write the spending bills.  For instance, the Reconciliation Conference may be the ones who write the omnibus spending bill this year.  Or, more precisely, the hand-picked democratic members of the Reconciliation Conference may write the omnibus spending bill this year.

Reconciliation and the Appropriations bills are two different things. To my knowledge, the FY22 Appropriations bills are still handled by the various appropriations committees. For example, the CJS Appropriations bill is still chaired by Senator Shaheen.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53546.msg2293147#msg2293147

Perhaps we are talking about different things.  A Reconciliation Conference is held by a committee of Senators and House members that reconciles any differences between a bill that it passed by the House with the one passed by the Senate.  Some bills are so-called "written in conference" because the final result may not bear much resemblance to the original bills.  So an appropriations bill may be written into law that in part disregards the work of the appropriations committees.

As I understand it, appropriations bills usually are not written in conference because there are special rules for the conference.  But there are various ways that the power of the individual appropriations committees/subcommittees and their members can be reduced.

Separate from this is the $3.5 billion reconciliation bill that is coming up for a vote soon.  Ironically, the reconciliation bill may in fact be written in the Reconciliation Conference.

Yes, we were indeed talking about different things. They are calling the 3.5T bill, the reconciliation bill. I thought that is what you meant. But now I understand what you meant. Thanks for the clarification.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1