posted 02-13-2010 07:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bobzz:
NO American will venture into earth orbit on an American vehicle for at least 10 years.

---

That was with Ares I. NASA's own study in 2009 suggests the Delta IV could be man-rated after 5 years. While it's been stated Atlas V could be ready to launch crew after just 2 years.

If Shelby, Gifford, Nelson and Kosmas care about NASA human spaceflight (instead of being lobbyists), then a compromise could be reached whereby Orion is salvaged. And one of the aforementioned EELVs could become Orion's launcher well before 2020.

posted 02-13-2010 09:46 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt T:
...not offering a clear answer to any of the central concerns being offered by pro-Constellation/anti-flexible path posters.

---

Those who claim that the private sector cannot possibly meet the requirements are ignoring several decades of the industry moving in that direction.

Those who say that the nation needs a heavy-lift vehicle (a position I agree with, by the way), ignore that a heavy-lift capability is part of NASA's plans going forward.

Those who say that no astronauts will fly on an American spacecraft for a decade are making blanket assumptions, and therefore merit being nitpicked.

posted 02-13-2010 11:50 AM               

Two dozen members of the U.S. House of Representatives are warning NASA Administrator Charles Bolden not to shut down any part of the Constellation program this year, citing a provision included in a 2010 omnibus spending bill that bars the agency from terminating any part of the space shuttle replacement effort without formal congressional approval.

"We have become aware of the formation by NASA Headquarters of at least five 'tiger teams,' the job of which is to shut down Constellation and transition to the new program," states a Feb. 12 letter to Bolden spearheaded by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) and signed by 19 other Republicans and four Democrats.

The letter also instructs Bolden to reinstate an unspecified "major contract related to Ares 1" that was put on hold Jan. 23, adding that any disruption to Constellation contracts will be viewed as a program termination.

posted 02-13-2010 07:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bobzz:
Bottom line.... my prediction is, NO American will venture into earth orbit on an American vehicle for at least 10 years.

---

posted 02-13-2010 09:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury7:
Wow it would be so cool if Congress saved Constellation.

---

Otherwise, Congress will not have "saved Constellation," but rather only delayed the program's inevitable failure.

posted 02-14-2010 01:34 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Thus far, in my opinion, most of the concerns raised have not been based on any specific insight but rather politics, pessimism and premature assumptions.

---

Put simply, the President's "flexible" plan MUST succeed for NASA itself to realistically survive. On the other hand, if Bush's "plan" to return to the moon by a stated date were continued by the current administration, NASA would continue to exist to "fight another day", even if the specific date goals weren't met (since even an underfunded NASA would still continue doing what it exists to do and does today; the same can't be said if the "flexible-private-sector" plan fails and NASA has already shriveled into a state of non-functioning irrelevance).

posted 02-14-2010 03:05 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
Put simply, the President's "flexible" plan MUST succeed for NASA itself to realistically survive.

---

What I find most interesting is that when the decision was made a couple of years ago to hand off space station resupply to the U.S. commercial sector -- a role traditionally filled by both NASA using the space shuttle and by purchasing space on international cargo carriers -- I don't remember hearing the same cries of defeat. I don't recall anyone here claiming the commercial sector couldn't possibly succeed in such an endeavor, nor that their timeline to do so, by 2014, was unrealistic.

But now, when the same is proposed for crew services and the companies involved reach beyond just the start-ups (not to suggest that there is anything wrong with being a start-up), there is this uproar. Granted, human systems are more complex, but NASA will be sharing its expertise and serving in the same oversight role that it has with its history of contracted services.

And then there is the fact that this isn't the first time that the U.S. has tried to move forward with passing the nation's human spaceflight program to private industry. The X-33, which fell victim to NASA's own cutting-edge technology requirements, was intended as a demonstrator for a commercially-operated spacecraft that was envisioned to replace the space shuttle, and, were it not for the loss of Columbia, the shuttle fleet itself may have been fully privatized, with NASA purchasing seats and cargo space on a mission to mission basis.

posted 02-14-2010 04:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
For the sake of discussion, what do we mean by saving "Constellation"? Ares + Orion + Altair?

---

Similarly, Altair does not require Ares V. Ares was always the weakest link in Constellation.

posted 02-14-2010 10:44 AM            

So given the option, I will take saving Constellation with minimum funding over its complete cancellation... to me this is about keeping the dream alive, the next president may very well have the vision to jump start it.

posted 02-14-2010 01:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury7:
I strongly disagree with Robert suggesting that without the additional $3 billion a year that Constellation will inevitably fail.

---

quote:

---

Orion is the most important piece that needs funding to completion right now...

---

posted 02-14-2010 01:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
Orion can be launched as it was originally designed on either Delta IV or Atlas V. Both rockets are HLLVs.

---

And we can't compare Ares V and Delta IV payload capacities... unless you name Ares V a Super Heavy Lift Vehicle.

posted 02-14-2010 01:55 PM               

NASA is identified in the public's mind with manned space flight, and what has changed is Obama not just pushing back a stated date for a moon or Mars mission, but stating flat out we won't be returning to the moon, or going to Mars anytime soon. If this doesn't take the air out of NASA's tires, I don't know what does. Contrarily, Obama is perfectly free to consider the findings of any study group and still recommend a different course. That's called leadership, as opposed to just kicking a can down the road.

posted 02-14-2010 02:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
...fold the tent altogether and increase funding to JPL. ...lock down and instead fold those tasks into the DOD?

---

quote:

---

...what has changed is Obama not just pushing back a stated date for a moon or Mars mission, but stating flat out we won't be returning to the moon, or going to Mars anytime soon.

---

Further, Constellation had no set timeline for Mars (there were references to circa 2050), whereas Bolden has said a manned Mars landing is possible by 2030 if we forego the Moon first (nothing says we couldn't go back to the Moon after Mars).

posted 02-14-2010 02:14 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Thus far, in my opinion, most of the concerns raised have not been based on any specific insight but rather politics, pessimism and premature assumptions.

---

Special interest groups like this community choose their leaders based, in part, on their views and promises (if you can call them that) to expand, finance, and support the issue of interest. When that leader says one thing, gets elected, then does an about-face on the issue, those who believed in him are quite deservedly disappointed, disillusion, and dejected (the three D's).

Pessimism exists in this community due to the real uncertainty in what lies ahead. It's great to be hopeful, but it is a bitter pill to swallow when a program was coming together (though underfunded) with real hardware to go do what everyone here thinks should be done. If Obama has his way, that effort is now over.

There is a BIG difference between cutting metal now to go to the moon and starting over with unproven technology from unproven companies at some distant point in the future. Grand, generalized statements about "fanning out across the solar system" does not carry the reassurance of seeing Apollo veterans giving their input to Altair engineers in designing a lunar lander.

If our elected leader really believed in human space exploration, he would step up and say so, and provide the necessary funding to get the program back on track, not because it's the best approach, but because it is one which can make real near-term progress. No one can say with certainty that Constellation was not fixable.

The current position of this administration puts this real progress very far off in the distance, and relies on a great many assumptions of success on the part of the commercial providers. This is not unlike the roadblock to ISS construction which occurred when partner countries were allowed to build "critical path" hardware for that program, and may very well have the same result.

As far as the outcry goes, previous programs were never intended to replace the shuttle without a track record of success, and NASA would not be sitting in the bleachers waiting for that success to come before we could go fly again. X-33 was canceled long before the Columbia accident and the retirement announcement. Commercial transportation would be pursued as a complimentary development program, not a sole-source provider. The stakes here are much higher.

Premature assumption exist on both sides of the argument. Some may prematurely assume that the commercial providers will not be able to do what is asked of them. Others prematurely assumed that Ares was the wrong rocket for the job at hand. The fact is no one really knows until the program is in the history books.

What really kills me are the folks who don't have the willpower to pick a position and stick with it. If you were a vocal supporter of Ares 1/V/Altair prior to the announcement, why would you change your position after? Do you want to see real near-term human space exploration or are you willing to put it off to some undetermined date (possibly beyond some of our lifetimes) because it sounds like a better way to go, or because of your own political leanings?

I, for one, felt that Constellation was the best shot we had at getting out of LEO in my lifetime. I will not blindly follow some politicians' radical departure from this path just because I think he's a great guy.

If the opinion is now that this was such a better way to go, then why was there no outcry from those people prior to the current programs' cancellation? I don't recall anyone saying that Constellation was a miserable waste of resources, or that we'd be better off handing the effort off to these start-up's.

posted 02-14-2010 02:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
...because it is one which can make real near-term progress.

---

quote:

---

The current position of this administration puts this real progress very far off in the distance...

---

quote:

---

The stakes here are much higher.

---

Could the plan fail? Sure, but the chances are roughly the same as Constellation failing for political or technical reasons (see: X-33, Orbital Space Plane).

quote:

---

If you were a vocal supporter of Ares 1/V/Altair prior to the announcement, why would you change your position after?

---

posted 02-14-2010 03:36 PM               

But no - instead we're told that a budget deemed entirely insufficient for the current exploration program IS actually sufficient if we increase the magnitude of the goals dramatically and rely on the commercial sector to pick up all the technological and financial slack. And we're now also asked to believe it won't even take longer?

It makes me angry to have my intelligence insulted by such tepid fluff while my hopes for manned space exploration are dashed.

posted 02-14-2010 03:49 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Thus far, in my opinion, most of the concerns raised have not been based on any specific insight but rather politics, pessimism and premature assumptions.

---

Why is the belief that a private company can build a manned spacecraft and turn a profit (please remember, it's "commercial" craft that are being pushed by the so called flexible path) not a premature assumption?

Please allow me to argue from another non-spaceflight point. Imagine, if you will, that the only company that built commercial passenger aircraft was Boeing. Let's say they build the craft very well (which they obviously really do), are extremely expensive to operate, you fly them frequently, and believe they do an excellent job. However, it's now time to buy a new plane.

Boeing will sell you one of their well-built, expensive-to-build-and- operate jets.

Now someone comes along with some PowerPoints and claims they can build a commercial jetliner that costs half as much to build, will operate with 1/10 the life cycle cost, and they can have a plane in operation with these stats in four years. While this company's head used to work for Piper Aircraft (a builder of private, one to four seat aircraft), his company has never built a plane of any type. Would you buy into their company? Would you believe them? Would you throw away your option to buy a Boeing plane for the upstart's PowerPoint plane knowing that Boeing would go out of business if you did?

The above is, in my opinion, very similar to what the "flexible path" does to the U.S. manned spaceflight program.

The real premature assumption here is that the "flexible path" will result in any U.S. manned spacecraft.

There are no politics in this argument.

Pessimism? The NASA administration says the U.S. needs heavy-lift BUT will develop it in 15 to 20 years (or more)! Does not everyone find need for pessimism with statements such as this?

The flexible path is for Congress to fully fund the Constellation program, provide funds for appropriate operation of the Space Station for a reasonable period of time, and fund the other required and necessary activities of NASA. If not, then I believe there is no point in the continued waste of taxpayer dollars on a so-called "flexible path" and probably another new "flexible path" and yet more PowerPoints when the next administration arrives in DC.

We do not need the Administrator to see it as a goal to start a scholarship program, not to mention other questionable proposals. (This statement is not about politics; please watch the Administrator's STS-130 launch news conference.)

We need to start on a realistic path to Mars (i.e. 15 to 20 year from now, in stone, landing date plus), with no flowery claims about developing warp drive like propulsion.

Please stop the waste of money by underfunding or making more changes. Make a decision, make technology adjustments as required but stick with it.

I believe it is finally time to say: Either do it or end it. I hope the reply that comes back is "let's do it."

Let's go to Mars.

posted 02-14-2010 04:20 PM               

The "Flexible Path," as coined by the Augustine committee, has little to do with who provides the vehicles. Rather, it refers to an approach whereby the goal is not to go one place and stop but rather go multiple places.

The primary allure of the "Flexible Path" from a budgetary viewpoint is that most of the proposed locations would not require a lander, e.g. near-Earth asteroids, Mars' moon Phobos, lunar orbit and the Lagrange points (the latter for the construction of fuel depots).

So, let's not confuse commercial crew and cargo services with the "flexible path".

Secondly, your analogy has a couple of flaws: it assumes that (a) those offering the alternative "plane" have never built a jetliner before, ignoring that the "Boeing" in your comparison is one and the same offering the new vehicle, competing against others; and (b) that some of those competitors are well beyond PowerPoint, with rockets almost ready or already flying (at least one has had multiple boosters flying for decades).

As for your other points:

Pessimism: Constellation was on a 15 to 20 year timeline to deliver heavy-lift as well.

Warp drives: No one is being flowery when talking about VASIMR, a real ion engine that is ready to be tested in space.

posted 02-14-2010 04:46 PM               

Please note that I am not referring to plans, which keep getting pushed back because of funding shortfalls. There is no reason to believe any "flexible path", which will need additional funds, would not meet a similar fate, then the proposed 15 to 20 years. I never said I was happy with the current Constellation situation. Heavy lift existed in the early 60's. Very sad, and not reasonable, that it would take so long to do again.

As far as my plane analogy, I obviously do not agree. Again, where is the company with the experience who will put up the money to build? Please show a business model that works.

Maybe a better statement here about Constellation would be "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Granted, not the best argument, but to the point.

I do not believe anyone will ever commit to going to Mars to land on one of its moons. This weak objective does not justify the risk nor the cost. If you travel that far and spend the resources required, a landing is the only justified outcome.

posted 02-14-2010 05:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
The plan was to be on the moon by 2020. Heavy lift would obviously have to be developed by then... I am not referring to plans, which keep getting pushed back because of funding shortfalls.

---

quote:

---

There is no reason to believe any "flexible path", which will need additional funds, would not meet a similar fate

---

(It should be noted that the President's plan is not the 'flexible path,' at least not as defined by the Augustine committee, as that too would require more money.)

quote:

---

Again, where is the company with the experience who will put up the money to build? Please show a business model that works.

---

quote:

---

I do not believe anyone will ever commit to going to Mars to land on one of its moons.

---

quote:

---

I have not seen an approved written plan put forth by the NASA Administrator either with this date.

---

"I am confident that, when I say humans on Mars is a goal for the nation, not just NASA, I'm saying that because I believe the president will back me up."

posted 02-14-2010 05:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The "by 2020" goal became impossible several years ago.

---

posted 02-14-2010 05:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury7:
This is complete hog wash...

---

posted 02-14-2010 06:00 PM               

I simply don't trust this President's motives, and it really does pain me to write that.

posted 02-14-2010 08:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
No amount of funding today can reclaim the time needed to produce the tooling and parts needed to build Ares V.

---

posted 02-14-2010 08:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
There is a very important difference: the 'flexible path' was created to match the funds available to NASA, whereas the Constellation program was underfunded from the start...

---

Yes, ULA builds and successfully launches unmanned craft. The key word here is "unmanned". Where is their experience to design and build a manned craft and more importantly (I cannot stress this enough) where is the business model that allows them to do this at a profit? They (ULA) operate as they should: for profit.

There are many Mars proposals that go around. The only justified outcome of an investment is a Mars surface landing. Any approval of a Mars moon landing is doomed to failure because the investment of resources vs. risk and reward viewpoint will ultimately end such a program. The resources (e.g., cost, percentage difference) will ultimately differ going to a Mars moon. That is, the lander and associated cost will be small when compared to total program cost and the reward from a high risk moon landing would be very small. (Obviously, a planet surface landing, if someone would pay for it, would be a great thing. I, for one, hope it's the U.S. that arrives first.)

Again, there is nothing in the budget proposal by the Administration that says Mars in 2030 is the goal. In fact, unless I somehow missed it, there is no goal in the proposal. The technology investments proposed as the core of NASA with no clear goal will ultimately make it easier to cut their funding as budget problems continue in the federal government. I can point, unfortunately, to many off-the-cuff remarks by Administrators (and, yes, Presidents too) about programs that are not policy and never happen.

Finally, I believe placing the panel of the Augustine report as the ultimate authority on what NASA can and cannot do is a serious error (the "How do you know better than they?" argument). Why do they know THE answer? I am sure almost anyone can assemble a panel of "experts" that would come to a completely different conclusion... and I know that the next Administration, be they Democrat or Republican, with this one as an example, will probably do just that to justify their plans whatever they may be.

Nevertheless, didn't the Augustine report have other plans (and didn't the first Augustine panel "sign-off" on the Constellation program at its start)? It seems the discussion going on here is that the flexible path is THE plan and you are wrong if you do not agree with the flexible path or Constellation. Well, what if I agree with the Augustine report's other plans and not the flexible plan?

posted 02-15-2010 03:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
I simply don't trust this President's motives

---

I would surmise that nearly all of those criticising the new plan here are of that persuasion.

posted 02-15-2010 07:10 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury7:
If the President committed the nation to landing on the moon by 2020 it would happen.

---

posted 02-15-2010 09:06 AM               

I also want to see us return to the Moon towards developing the technology and hardware we will need to venture to Mars.

Why can't we do both?

We all agree that NASA has been underfunded for years, trying to do too much with too little. Other federal agencies spend billions on space. Has there been a review of eliminating duplicate efforts? Can't developing a reliable heavy lift vehicle be beneficial to the DoD?

Let the commercial sector build their rockets, create jobs, maybe even develop "game-changing" technological advances. We should encourage that. But let's not put all of our eggs in one basket. Man-rate the Delta 4, the Atlas 5, build the Ares 1. Let's also help the Falcon 9 fly. Let the goal become to never again be in the position where the ending of one program or one tragic failure grounds us for years.

The problem with space-advocacy organizations is our failure to cooperate on the larger picture. It shouldn't be "Constellation" vs "Flexible Path" - it should be "assured access to space".

But the responsibility should not be the United States or Russia's (or China's) alone. ESA - you've done a fine job of building the Ariane class of vehicles, of contributing to the ISS program. If you want to go to the Moon or Mars you better build a spacecraft and an Ariane 6 HLV. C'mon there are ten of you - certainly you can pool resources and accomplish that!?

My biggest concern besides seeing U.S. workers laid off while we launch Americans aboard a Soyuz is that we are relying on one vehicle to get to space. If the Russians suffer a major failure the crew is likely to survive because of their LES - but then we're grounded until the cause can be found and corrected.

Let's build an Orion that can carry six people - not four. Put it on multiple launch vehicles. Let's also resurrect the X-38 to allow for ISS science to be returned in a less stressful non-ballistic reentry to preserve the results - oh and have an additional CRV.

You want to inspire students in the STEM subjects? Give them many options, give them an exciting future to be apart of.

posted 02-15-2010 09:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
So why not turn over ownership of the vehicle to Lockheed Martin...

---

posted 02-15-2010 09:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KSCartist:
We did go to the Moon "before that decade was out" because we had the will to do so. We CAN do it again at the same time we encourage "game-changing" advances to make a trip to Mars faster. There's a lot to be done put for the love of God let's stop arguing about it and get to work.

---

posted 02-15-2010 09:50 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury7:
Obama killed that dream

---

posted 02-15-2010 12:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
He did nothing of the sort... no President has the ability to kill dreams.

---

quote:

---

It's time to wake up and look at what is actually being done.

---

posted 02-15-2010 12:31 PM               

by Roger Launius, former NASA Chief Historian and senior curator at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum, and Michael Green, senior planner at NASA headquarters.

...the rhetoric about future dangers being spread, however, too often approaches nonsense. One observer overstated that "left to their own devices, (commercial firms) tend to produce unreliable hardware that explodes."

Amazingly untrue; over two decades, commercial launchers have delivered critical services with excellent reliability.

This new path need not abandon human exploration; it could provide the U.S. with a sustainable and executable space exploration plan indefinitely. It furthers human activities on ISS, and opens translunar space sooner than other approaches and on American rockets built by commercial providers.

posted 02-15-2010 02:47 PM               

It's because since the budget was released I've done the background research on the Constellation program that I neglected to do when all I was really supporting before was the idea of returning to the Moon.

The more I've learned about the Constellation program in the past few weeks, the more I realized that it would not succeed--not as originally envisioned, and not anywhere near the timeline proposed. It might have eventually got there, if enough money was thrown at it, but the will to spend that much money just isn't there.

Yes, we went to the Moon within one decade back in the 1960s. But we spent 10 times the budget, and got there in a Volkswagen. Constellation was trying to get us there in a Cadillac, but without spending the money necessary to do so. It isn't a matter of will, or leadership, it's a matter of money.

posted 02-15-2010 06:26 PM               

This new path need not abandon human exploration;

It could provide the U.S. with a sustainable and executable space exploration plan indefinitely.

...and opens translunar space sooner than other approaches and on American rockets built by commercial providers.