Orion becomes a liability as Lockheed Martin pull 600 engineers off the contract

[JohnFornaro]

You believe incorrectly. The 2008 date was for development and "test" - not specifically flight test....

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54868main_bush_trans.pdf

Our second goal is to develop and test a new spacecraft, the crew exploration vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission no later than 2014....
This vehicle will be developed in stages, with the first automated test flight in 2008, more advanced test flights soon thereafter, and a fully operational capability no later than 2014....

...

The above exchange illustrates one facet of why the heathen rage and it centers on the meaning of the word "test", as well as the intentions of the communicating parties.  Here's my take:

First, let the words be words, and take the personalities out of this particular discussion.  Second, consider the common sense meaning of the word "test", and how there are many additional qualifications of the word, especially in the context of spaceflight and the wide range of testing which must take place.  Third, give politicians no quarter; their demonstrated actions over the last ten years have not resulted in widespread peace and prosperity.

It cannot be denied that Ares I-X was a "test", so clearly a lot depends on the meaning of the crucial word.  Everything, I'd say.  Bush called for the CEV to be "tested" in 2008.  Obviously, this didn't happen and current timelines for the literal CEV "test" are far into the future.  But even on the current timeline, what does "test" mean?

So, in 2004, what was the taxpayer supposed to believe was going to happen?  Congress provided plenty of hot air and little cold cash, but that doesn't tell us what "test" means.  Here we are, on the verge of virtually completely disposing of probably the entire database, not to mention hardware, of a program in exchange for a similar program which will need "testing".

But nobody will tell me, Joe Taxpayer, what "testing" means.  Therefore, goals and mileposts are vague and unreliable.  Worse, I've been told on multiple occasions that I "don't know how the process works", with the clear implication, that I don't even have the right to know.

The latest example, of course, is Orion.  Accepting that we've "devolved" back into using a passive capsule, I thought that Bolden made a good suggestion on the face of it;  let's use the Orion as the basis for a CEV and a lifeboat.  For one thing, I was thinking, good, the OML was such a big deal regarding Ares, why a common OML would be a pretty good way to save.  No, no.  I was told that the OML was "cheap"; that I didn't understand the "process"; that two fiefdoms program offices needed to be setup; two "testing" regimens; and virtually nothing would be common between the two vehicles.  Plus, we'd have to start from scratch anyhow.

You want it when?

...It's not logic that drives you towards SDLV, it's a personal preference. The logic drives you to invent reasons to support a preconceived conclusion. I wish I understood why people do that. Not that there's anything wrong with having a personal preference, though very few will own up to it.

I don't get this argument.  Why isn't it logical to use the current rocket as a basis for developing the next rocket?  To me, an acceptable answer would be:

Because a brand new rocket from scratch will cost a fraction of what tweaking the old design will cost

Which is a good answer.  We have the existential proof that a pretty darn good rocket can be made for less than the cost of a brand new, rusting launch tower.

The administration has offered NASA the correct amount of money, although it's distribution is quite questionable, in my mind.  Part of what LockMart is doing with the pull off of 600 engineers seems remarkably similar to the tactics used by the hedge funds the other year.  It seems like these people are being used as pawns to force a preferred course of action.  I'd say that they don't like the fact that their work is far too expensive.

What they do like, though, is that the administration won't even make a choice on what to do until 2015.  So sure, let's throw away Orion.  Nobody else gets the administration.  Very helpful.  Thanks for using my taxpayer dollars so prudently.

It doesn't take 5 years to decide.

I understand the process quite well.

Well, my personal preference since you bought it up is to keep the 8.4-meter tooling from the E.T. for any truly big HLV ventures because whether they end up choosing LH2 or Kerosene for fuelling a corestage, it would save billions using whats 'on hand'. Don't throw away hard-earned capability -- America has done it before and is in danger of doing it again. I believe using a corestage any wider than 8.4 meters would be re-inventing the wheel...

I agree.  Diameter of the tank is independent of the propellant chosen, within reason.  The myopic insistence upon optimization governing reliability and cost is the problem here.  Too many people in the process are deliberately making the perfect the enemy of the good, and are now getting called on it.

Matt, I'd love to discuss this further with you, but we'd need a different thread. Third time for me in a day, I think. There's no general HLV vs depots fragfest thread and I'm not sure we should create one. Suggestions are welcome.

I'll just reply to one little thing...

Finally, with some (respectful) amusement, I note that your touting of EELV alone could easily be stamped as personal preference...

This is one of those annoying things, people hear things that are different from what I'm saying. I'll accept my share of responsibility for a lack of effective communication, but I think it's not just me.

Martijn, it is not just you.  However, in the example above, I got the same sense that Matt did.  In general tho, too many of these posters around here are more interested in "winning" each discussion rather than seeing the mission and are happy to distort the "other" position.  In a way, we have far too many of these "must-winners" in the chain of command, and have for forty years and so we have stayed on planet.

[vt_hokie]

So with Dreamchaser - look at the same items. If you can get something that can make a success cost effectively, that then you can build upon, doesn't matter if its a capsule, space plane, or an electric car company for that matter.

I hope you're right, as nothing would please me more than to see Dreamchaser become a reality!  It is exactly the type of vehicle we could have and should have developed during the 1990's for a reasonable cost, instead of throwing away money on programs like X-33.

[mmeijeri]

I hope you're right, as nothing would please me more than to see Dreamchaser become a reality!  It is exactly the type of vehicle we could have and should have developed during the 1990's for a reasonable cost, instead of throwing away money on programs like X-33.

Or in the seventies, instead of Shuttle...

[gladiator1332]

So with Dreamchaser - look at the same items. If you can get something that can make a success cost effectively, that then you can build upon, doesn't matter if its a capsule, space plane, or an electric car company for that matter.

I hope you're right, as nothing would please me more than to see Dreamchaser become a reality!  It is exactly the type of vehicle we could have and should have developed during the 1990's for a reasonable cost, instead of throwing away money on programs like X-33.

Agreed. I wonder if SN is taken so seriously because of our record with winged vehicles...NASP, X-34, X-33, OSP, etc.

Ironically, Dreamchaser doesn't look too much different than OSP. Man, if you could get in the DeLorean and do it all again...wouldn't you just develop this:

[woods170]

Ironically, Dreamchaser doesn't look too much different than OSP. Man, if you could get in the DeLorean and do it all again...wouldn't you just develop this:

That thing looks very much like the European Hermes shuttle that was supposed to fly on Ariane 5. Hermes got cancelled in a very early stage of development over budget reasons.

[spacenut]

If NASA axes Orion, then I think they should pay for Dreamchaser for LEO operations, and upgrade the Dragon for BEO operations.  Nasa doesn't have to develop in house. 

[Jorge]

If NASA axes Orion, then I think they should pay for Dreamchaser for LEO operations, and upgrade the Dragon for BEO operations.  Nasa doesn't have to develop in house. 

Orion isn't in-house. The prime contractor is Lockheed-Martin.

[nooneofconsequence]

Dreamchaser is still just a dream. It will land on no one's agenda (heh) as a commercial provider at the moment. Nor will it ever be accepted by a prime at its current state,

What needs to change for it is to have some kind of test, the results of which allow its credible use in a role susceptible to an acceptable financial risk for a potential partner/investor to take. Otherwise it will continue to be a potential "maybe" indefinitely.

Space-X's success simply has reduced the resistance to such a gamble. If they are able to do something significant now, it will be seen more as likely to succeed wildly rather than be perceived as a "stunt" that prior it would have.

Because Space-X's stunt turned out not to be just a stunt.