SummaryNASA's Constellation program is developing the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle as the agency's first major efforts in a plan to return to the moon and eventually send humans to Mars. GAO has issued a number of reports and testimonies on various aspects of this program, and made several recommendations. GAO was asked to assess NASA's progress in implementing GAO's recommendations for the Ares I and Orion projects, and identify risks the program faces. GAO analyzed NASA plans and schedules, risk mitigation information, and contract performance data relative to knowledge-based acquisition practices identified in prior GAO reports, and interviewed government officials and contractors.NASA is still struggling to develop a solid business case--including firm requirements, mature technologies, a knowledge-based acquisition strategy, a realistic cost estimate, and sufficient funding and time--needed to justify moving the Constellation program forward into the implementation phase. Gaps in the business case include significant technical and design challenges for the Orion and Ares I vehicles, such as limiting vibration during launch, eliminating the risk of hitting the launch tower during lift off, and reducing the mass of the Orion vehicle, represent considerable hurdles that must be overcome in order to meet safety and performance requirements; and a poorly phased funding plan that runs the risk of funding shortfalls in fiscal years 2009 through 2012, resulting in planned work not being completed to support schedules and milestones. This approach has limited NASA's ability to mitigate technical risks early in development and precludes the orderly ramp up of workforce and developmental activities. In response to these gaps, NASA delayed the date of its first crewed-flight and changed its acquisition strategy for the Orion project. NASA acknowledges that funding shortfalls reduce the agency's flexibility in resolving technical challenges. The program's risk management system warned of planned work not being completed to support schedules and milestones. Consequently, NASA is now focused on providing the capability to service the International Space Station and has deferred the capabilities needed for flights to the moon. Though these changes to the overarching requirements are likely to increase the confidence level associated with a March 2015 first crewed flight, these actions do not guarantee that the program will successfully meet that deadline. Nevertheless, NASA estimates that Ares I and Orion represent up to $49 billion of the over $97 billion estimated to be spent on the Constellation program through 2020. While the agency has already obligated more than $10 billion in contracts, at this point NASA does not know how much Ares I and Orion will ultimately cost, and will not know until technical and design challenges have been addressed.
Gaps in the business case include significant technical and design challenges for the Orion and Ares I vehicles, such as limiting vibration during launch, eliminating the risk of hitting the launch tower during lift off, and reducing the mass of the Orion vehicle, represent considerable hurdles that must be overcome in order to meet safety and performance requirements...
This is not to say the program is perfect, or is what it should be, or even the right choice for any future program. I am amazed that it is only NASA who gets this kind of report put out in public on it, and gets beat over the head with it.
You must ask yourself this question. "Given that NASA is national prestige program purely funded by deficit spending, do you feel a 30% increase in NASA's budget, that itself would come out of further deficit spending, is justifiable?" or "Does the nation that decrys socialism in health care need to embrace socialism in space launch?"
NASA, like many other Gov agencies, is driven by research, safety and development.
...purely funded by deficit spending... -More BS. Everything our Gov does (schools, roads, socialist services, defense, EPA, etc.) is deficit spending. That's not the fault of the program/agency, it's the fault of poor leadership.
Does the nation that decrys socialism in health care... -We already have socialist health care. It's called Medicare/Medicaid.
-NASA, like many other Gov agencies, is driven by research, safety and development.-More BS. Everything our Gov does (schools, roads, socialist services, defense, EPA, etc.) is deficit spending. That's not the fault of the program/agency, it's the fault of poor leadership.-Could you explain what's socialist about Constellation?-"Do you actually believe all that BS, or are you intentionally trying to obscure truth and deceive others?"
NASA with it's "any problem can be fixed with proper funding" attitude has time and again proven itself to the the antithesis of the good steward.
No launch vehicle (especially as primitive as the Ares-1) development costs the ridiculous amounts of money and time as the Ares does. End of. This is mismanagement, and covering incompetence with dollar bills.
Quote from: SpacexULA on 09/26/2009 03:10 pmNASA with it's "any problem can be fixed with proper funding" attitude has time and again proven itself to the the antithesis of the good steward.How do you figure? Has anyone ever actually tried giving NASA the funding they ask for?Oh, right - Apollo. They accomplished exactly what they were supposed to, on deadline.
When given 5% of the federal budget, NASA built a single booster than consumed half it's budget... There where cheaper ways to do Apollo, that would have created a system that didn't take half their budget, but it would have took longer.
When given 1-.5% of the federal budget NASA built a single booster that consumed half it's budget.
I think your view is still a bit skewed.Quote from: SpacexULA on 09/27/2009 04:06 pmWhen given 5% of the federal budget, NASA built a single booster than consumed half it's budget... There where cheaper ways to do Apollo, that would have created a system that didn't take half their budget, but it would have took longer.If it had "took longer" it would have failed its mission. End of decade, remember?
Quote from: 93143 on 09/27/2009 08:00 pmI think your view is still a bit skewed.Quote from: SpacexULA on 09/27/2009 04:06 pmWhen given 5% of the federal budget, NASA built a single booster than consumed half it's budget... There where cheaper ways to do Apollo, that would have created a system that didn't take half their budget, but it would have took longer.If it had "took longer" it would have failed its mission. End of decade, remember? No, the task was to beat the soviets to the moon. NASA could have easily done any of the more sustainable Gemini approaches, EOR mode architecture and still comfortably beat soviets to the moon with time to spare.N-1 was not going anywhere fast.
Hindsight is 20-10.
The claim that Apollo was the One and the Only way to beat soviets, or to get to the moon is a case of severe tunnel vision.