Topic: Constellation cancelled: NASA's new approach
moorouge Member
Posts: 2486 From: U.K. Registered: Jul 2009
posted 02-05-2010 05:38 AM
quote:Originally posted by cjh5801: The point is that Apollo was an aberration that can never be repeated. The difference between a NASA budget of 4% of the national budget then, and the current 0.52% of the national budget now, should make that reasonably clear.
The Apollo programme actually cost less than half of one percent of the Gross National Product, less than 2% of Federal spending and about the same amount as received by Proctor and Gamble in sales receipts. More importantly, up until '11' landed on the Moon, budget increases amounted to 1.8% per annum over original estimates. You can compare this to the 17% per annum increase for Concorde over the same period.
issman1 Member
Posts: 1106 From: UK Registered: Apr 2005
posted 02-05-2010 06:10 AM
How long before those ATK lobbyists in the US House and Senate come to their senses and embrace the "Flexible Path"?
They should ask ATK why it did not choose to go with the Ares IV from the outset, is probably the biggest mistake in Constellation.
jimsz Member
Posts: 644 From: Registered: Aug 2006
posted 02-05-2010 06:14 AM
quote:Originally posted by cjh5801: Would it be fair to ask if the reverse is true? Is some of the opposition coming from those who think the man can do no right?
That would be very fair to ask.
spaced out Member
Posts: 3190 From: Paris, France Registered: Aug 2003
posted 02-05-2010 07:07 AM
quote:Originally posted by GoesTo11: Here's a related essay, published last year, that's worth reading. It's long, but has a lot of food for thought no matter where you stand on the proposed "new direction."
Thanks for the link. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions it's a well written and thought-provoking article.
cjh5801 Member
Posts: 189 From: Lacey Registered: Jun 2009
posted 02-05-2010 08:48 AM
quote:Originally posted by Matt T: Absolutely - my point is just that, space IS dangerous despite the best efforts. Far more dangerous than most fully informed people would accept for the purpose of leisure. "Disney Rocket - only one crew loss per 50 flights!" is never going to cut it in the tourism market.
Personally, I think the tourism market is overstated by the commercial companies. The price will never be low enough for the masses. But that said, we're already seeing the wealthy paying $20 million a head to visit ISS. As the article pointed out, a number of mountaineers die every year in their various pursuits of leisure. As do motorcyclists, surfers, divers, and skiers. It doesn't stop them.
I doubt there'll be a short supply of those willing to risk their lives in space who will be wealthy enough to do so.
Jay Chladek Member
Posts: 2272 From: Bellevue, NE, USA Registered: Aug 2007
posted 02-05-2010 08:52 AM
You should know by now that no large aerospace company such as ATK or Lockheed Martin sticks all their eggs in one basket. So while ATK doesn't publicly embrace the budget idea, you know they have contingency plans in the works in case that does happen. I've been to a couple of the space and defense conferences held over the last two years locally and both times the ATK booth had their Ares 1 and V models on display, but nearby they also had some EELV models built with shuttle SRB segments in the first stage (two and three segment motors). So they are thinking ahead to alternatives.
The recent statement from Lockheed that Orion could be ready in three years has my crap detector going off, but reading between the lines it seemed more like a direct challenge to SpaceX's statement that a manned Dragon could be ready in that period. There is a lot of open posturing, but behind the scenes, there are people in these big companies planning the next step if it needs to be taken.
So if Constellation is really dead, you can bet that Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ATK and Northrop Grumman are likely to be back in the game proposing elements of their old Orion designs from 2006 to try and counter the smaller firms. At the same time, ATK will likely propose and put forward the work it has done on the Ares 1 first stage as an alternative to the LM Ares V and Boeing's Delta, both of which probably be proposed as manned launchers.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 02-05-2010 08:52 AM
quote:Originally posted by cjh5801: paying $20 million a head
Small correction: $45 million. The base fee hasn't been $20 million for several years.
capoetc Member
Posts: 2337 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 02-05-2010 08:52 AM
quote: Originally posted by cjh5801: No NASA vehicle -- including the space shuttle -- has met the agency’s own human-rating standards since the 1960s. (quoted from the article in The New Atlantic
There is a big difference between setting a "standard" and doing the best you can to achieve it vs. making the standard "we'll make it as safe as we can afford to".
Here is the outcome I would like to see at this point. It is a solution that will please few people, but at least reduces the risk regarding US manned access to space:
Congress includes funding in the Omnibus plan for Ares I and Orion, discarding the other parts of Constellation.
NASA continues to support the efforts of commercial space providers with the long term goal of handing over US manned space flight operations to such providers when they are ready.
There may be a way to transfer Ares I over to a commercial contractor at some point for them to operate (ala the USA arrangement). Also, retaining Orion gives NASA the ability to tell commercial contractors "develop a booster to lift this spacecraft into orbit".
This solution would cost more (but likely not that much more), but I think it would reduce US risk exposure in the long term.
The vision? That would be short and medium term access to ISS, and we'll figure something out for the long term.
Unfortunately, I think that's about the best we can hope for at this point.
jimsz Member
Posts: 644 From: Registered: Aug 2006
posted 02-05-2010 11:25 AM
quote:Originally posted by capoetc: The vision? That would be short and medium term access to ISS, and we'll figure something out for the long term.
If even the short term is to simply ferry people to the ISS, NASA is doomed.
They need something big, bold and awe inspiring. LEO has been the stopping point for almost 40 years. It's time to move on. The taxpayers and taxcollectors simply will continue to give less for unambitious and mediocre missions.
cjh5801 Member
Posts: 189 From: Lacey Registered: Jun 2009
posted 02-05-2010 11:47 AM
We certainly need to see some exciting goals for the new plan, and I look forward with anticipation to Bolden's promise for more detail in the months to come. For example, I'm still hoping that the moon is a viable option, though it may not be reached through the Constellation approach.
At this point, I guess my bottom line is that I'm willing to give this new plan a shot for the next five years. It may turn out to be a dead end, but would that be any worse than the mucking about in LEO that NASA has been doing for the past 30 or so years?
My dreams were dashed back in the 1970s with the death of Apollo. After so many years of watching our space program going in circles, I can wait awhile longer to see if we are truly setting out in a new direction that will bring us better results.
capoetc Member
Posts: 2337 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 02-05-2010 11:53 AM
quote:Originally posted by cjh5801: At this point, I guess my bottom line is that I'm willing to give this new plan a shot for the next five years. It may turn out to be a deadend, but would that be any worse than the mucking about in LEO that NASA has been doing for the past 30 or so years?
Yes, I think that would be far worse than "mucking about". If it turns out that the commercial contractors cannot perform, then NASA starts out at ground zero with 5 years wasted.
Personally, I think the commercial companies can perform. They just may take longer than they (or we) think. And, (this is an important point), the pressure and the scrutiny on those companies will be far greater if they are the only game in town. If NASA has access to space via some spacecraft developed and operated by NASA, then commercial companies can continue their development work without Congress breathing down their necks saying, "Is it ready yet? Why not?"
For national security reasons, the US must maintain its ability for manned spaceflight. The longer the gap, the greater the risk.
capoetc Member
Posts: 2337 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 02-05-2010 12:07 PM
quote:Originally posted by jimsz: If even the short term is to simply ferry people to the ISS, NASA is doomed.
Hmmm ...I don't think so. Particularly if a new administration takes office in 2012.
At this time, the dollars simply are not forthcoming for a truly ambitious US space program. The US needs assured access to space, so developing a capability (independant of Russians/Chinese/anyone-else) is essential. We have spent billions of dollars on ISS, so let's find a way to use ISS to learn as much as we can.
I like the idea of working on commercial space options, and I like the idea of doing research for future mission capability (although "game changing" might be a bit grandiose a term to use for it).
You will find no greater supporter of manned missions to the moon/Mars/elsewhere than I. However, the money just is not there. I'd rather kick the can down the road and leave some options open for future Administrations.
cjh5801 Member
Posts: 189 From: Lacey Registered: Jun 2009
posted 02-05-2010 12:39 PM
quote:Originally posted by capoetc: Yes, I think that would be far worse than "mucking about". If it turns out that the commercial contractors cannot perform, then NASA starts out at ground zero with 5 years wasted.
I'm not seeing it. Under the current plan, what we're sure to see would be more cost overruns and pushed back completion dates. In other words, 5 years wasted with nothing to show for it.
capoetc Member
Posts: 2337 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 02-05-2010 01:48 PM
quote:Originally posted by cjh5801: I'm not seeing it. Under the current plan, what we're sure to see would be more cost overruns and pushed back completion dates. In other words, 5 years wasted with nothing to show for it.
Agreed. The current plan (Constellation) is fiscally unsustainable.
Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that Ares I and Orion, without the burden of flying the shuttle or of continued development on other Constellation hardware, are doomed to cost overruns and pushed back completion dates?
I happen to think that cancellation of all Constellation hardware except Ares I and Orion would be a do-able thing. And I hope Congress will agree.
cjh5801 Member
Posts: 189 From: Lacey Registered: Jun 2009
posted 02-05-2010 02:11 PM
Even with the cancellation of the Constellation program, I think there will be ample opportunity to salvage much of the work that has gone on in the last few years. Whether that means Ares 1 and Orion in one form or another, or just bits and pieces of both, I don't think it'll be a total loss.
Even under Obama's plan, perhaps much of what's been suggested for Ares 1 may be utilized by one or more of the larger commercial entities.
cspg Member
Posts: 6347 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
posted 02-05-2010 11:48 PM
quote:Originally posted by cjh5801: I doubt there'll be a short supply of those willing to risk their lives in space who will be wealthy enough to do so.
Let them risk their lives. But let them raise the capital to build the necessary infrastructure and finance their own trip. It's not the role of the Government to finance the wealthy's leisure activities, is it?
328KF Member
Posts: 1388 From: Registered: Apr 2008
posted 02-06-2010 09:43 AM
Robert got a great question in for Charlie Bolden concerning the future of the astronaut office at the press conference just now, and Bolden's response was quite revealing.
Robert, will you be able to post the text of his answer here?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 02-06-2010 09:47 AM
quote:Originally posted by 328KF: Robert, will you be able to post the text of his answer here?
Yes: still sitting in the briefing but when over, I plan to transcribe Bolden's lengthy reply in its entirety.
posted 02-06-2010 10:41 AM
What was revealing in the Bolden press conference, at least to me, was the perception that Heavy Lift-Launch Vehicle capability is now paramount for NASA.
Constellation did include Ares V, but it would not have been ready until the mid-2020s. And only then it would have been for launching unmanned elements such as Altair.
Mr. Bolden mentioned a HLLV for humans. I still think circa-2020 is a viable date. Interestingly, he also mentioned international partners. Could this be a reference to the Energia rocket, specifically its engines?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 02-06-2010 02:05 PM
NASA TV update
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden meets with reporters at the Kennedy Space Center press site to discuss Sunday's scheduled launch of space shuttle Endeavour and other agency news and programs.
SpaceAholic Member
Posts: 5246 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
If we can put a man on the moon, Americans used to say, we ought to be able to solve our current problems. So the question of whether the US can still put a man on the moon matters a lot to national morale. Barack Obama’s administration this week released a budget that would scrap Nasa’s Constellation programme. That plan, announced by George W. Bush after the crash of the space shuttle Columbia in 2003, aimed to send US astronauts to the moon by the year 2020. It has failed.
The new budget dresses up the demise of Constellation as opening the way to “a bold new course for human space flight”, a more modern, “21st-century” space programme. But the bravado is that of a dog barking louder as he backs away from a fight. There is no indication of any alternative destination for manned space missions. Richard Shelby, the Republican senator from Alabama, called the Nasa budget a “death march for the future of US human spaceflight”.
It is an odd time to give up on lunar exploration. India, China and Japan have run unmanned lunar missions in the past half-decade. Advances in instrumentation have made these flights scientifically rewarding. Last year, a Nasa instrument mounted on the Indian spacecraft Chandrayaan-1 discovered (spectroscopically) water on the moon, a discovery confirmed (physically) last autumn by a Nasa satellite. Is the US renouncing the moon because it has lost the inclination, lost the ability, or both?
cjh5801 Member
Posts: 189 From: Lacey Registered: Jun 2009
posted 02-06-2010 04:17 PM
One of the things I think the Obama administration has been poor at is explaining to the public why they have chosen the various options, policy directions, and programs that they have. Bolden is correct in saying that they've certainly botched this one.
In the press conference, Bolden acknowledges that much of the work that has been done on the Constellation program may be salvaged and applied to the new direction. But why wasn't this made clear in the first place? How much angst could have been avoided with better communication about what the president's new path forward entails?
The Financial Times is still saying that we've abandoned the Moon. Charlie Bolden has just said it'll be a stop along the way, and gives the impression that he thinks we'll get there about the same time as we would have under the Constellation program anyway. Could the bad press and hard feelings have been avoided if they had only said this up front?
Michael Davis Member
Posts: 559 From: Houston, Texas Registered: Aug 2002
posted 02-06-2010 04:25 PM
Two wars ongoing. Both on the other side of the planet. The worst economic slump since the Great Depression. An agenda of his own that he is trying to push through. I think I understand why the new President has not made the Constellation/Orion project his highest priority for analysis and public communication efforts. But I also think it's the first time in many years that serious thought has been given to our stated long term goals. I see that as a positive.
Spacefest Member
Posts: 1168 From: Tucson, AZ Registered: Jan 2009
posted 02-06-2010 05:07 PM
The silver lining is that this appears to have stimulated a fierce debate, that has illuminated NASA's budget, purpose, and future to an apathetic public.
Perhaps this will pique the interest of a wider audience. That's good. Anything to turn the focus above the horizon.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3604 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 02-06-2010 05:19 PM
This week has been deeply disappointing. I feel like the dream has died. The only consolation is that, statistically, I will be dead sometime in the next 25 years and that will make the pain go away.
star61 Member
Posts: 311 From: Bristol UK Registered: Jan 2005
posted 02-06-2010 07:23 PM
Well, as I expected all along, Constellation was not going to get us to the Moon. I was very uncomfortable with re-inventing an inferior Apollo 40 years later. Solid fuel rockets? ...fireworks, nothing less. So I guess I was interested and not a little pleased to hear of more money being directed to developing new propulsion systems. Energy and its conversion into momentum is THE major issue for exploring the solar system.
But now I listen to Charlie Bolden and I am worried. I like him. He is sincere and a straight talker... but... he "hopes we may have HLV flying by the mid to late 20's"!!!
Remember, we went from NO manned experience to walking on the Moon in 9 years! That's saying the same as today, Jan 2010 with no manned flights, we'll be on the Moon by 2019. But in fact we won't even have a capable lifter for another 6 years after that!
This really is a little depressing...
And the problem isn't money. It cost nothing to do Apollo... all the jobs created and technology acceleration that happened produced maybe 4 times as much payback as the original $25billion outlay. Not my calculation, but one done by economists several years back.
Where has the guts gone? ...where are the people with balls to say lets get mankind back out there!
It seems the more advanced technology we have, the longer and slower anything worthwhile doing, takes.
Very very frustrating....
Remember... empires decay from within! Only external observers seem able to see the rot setting in. Earth is our empire... we absolutely must get out there and look back to really appreciate the rot that IS setting in.
Per Ardua Ad Astra... so lets get the hell on with it...
"...he hopes to recoup about 1,000 jobs by persuading Congress to keep some or all of the Constellation's Ares program, and that he was involved in talks on Capitol Hill. "Those are the sorts of negotiations I have to do," he added.
We'll see...
cspg Member
Posts: 6347 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
posted 02-07-2010 12:36 AM
After watching the first 17 minutes of the press conference, it seems to me that Bolden is back-pedalling.
He said that he would use elements of Constellation for future systems and then admits that Constellation has yet to be cancelled. He has no authority to do so. Congress has. So is Constellation truly dead or will it rise again under a different name?
At 42:55 Bolden: "we're not abandoning Constellation."
And from 50:30 onwards, you can hear that Constellation wasn't that bad after all, simply "underfunded" and some of its systems will be optimized - wait for Constellation 2 to show up.
Constellation suffered budget shortfalls (as Bolden praises Griffin on that) and an impossible schedule. Makes you wonder why "cancel" Constellation and not stretch out the schedule. The Chinese don't have a schedule, as in "if we're not on the moon by March 15, 2023, we're all dead"-type of schedule.
And I hope that the Russians will renew their contract with NASA past 2013...
issman1 Member
Posts: 1106 From: UK Registered: Apr 2005
posted 02-07-2010 01:45 AM
quote:Originally posted by cspg: ...it seems to me that Bolden is back-pedalling.
I don't think Bolden was back-pedalling, but it seems some sort of compromise is on the cards. Orion may well be resurrected and a HLLV would be the best way to proceed.
capoetc Member
Posts: 2337 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 02-07-2010 07:45 AM
quote:Originally posted by cspg: ...and then admits that Constellation has yet to be cancelled. He has no authority to do so. Congress has. So is Constellation truly dead or will it rise again under a different name?
Congress already has. In the 2010 Omnibus spending bill, passed and signed into law in Dec 2009, a provision was added that prevents NASA from stopping work on any element of Constellation without specific approval to do so from Congress.
rjurek349 Member
Posts: 1223 From: Northwest Indiana Registered: Jan 2002
posted 02-07-2010 12:46 PM
Just read Walt Cunningham's Op Ed in the Houston Chronicle today. A great read. Glad to see Walt's thoughts and perspectives in print on the topic. Check it out.
dtemple Member
Posts: 766 From: Longview, Texas, USA Registered: Apr 2000
posted 02-07-2010 02:57 PM
If Constellation is canceled has anyone considered what will happen to the VAB/LCC and LC-39A/B? What purpose will they serve if NASA has no manned spaceflight capability (other than depending on the Russian Soyuz) for years and years into the future? How long will the VAB be allowed to stand unattended?
If the program is canceled I suspect these facilities will be demolished. When Apollo was terminated the Saturn rocket hardware was scrapped to make certain it was never revived. I can imagine a similar fate for the launch facilities if Constellation is actually canceled just to make certain it cannot be revived.
Also, these facilities cost money to maintain and without a purpose why would there be money made available to maintain them? Then there is the matter of all the talent leaving for other jobs.
How would a new manned program be started? From scratch - that's how. One can argue over Ares I/V vs. Delta IV/Atlas V/Jupiter 120, but canceling Constellation is a very bad idea.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 02-07-2010 03:11 PM
quote:Originally posted by dtemple: If Constellation is canceled has anyone considered what will happen to the VAB/LCC and LC-39A/B?
The budget proposal includes funding for Kennedy Space Center to upgrade and modify the Vehicle Assembly Building, Launch Control Center and Complex 39 for use by commercial customers, as well as for future heavy-lift implementation.
cjh5801 Member
Posts: 189 From: Lacey Registered: Jun 2009
posted 02-07-2010 03:19 PM
quote:Originally posted by rjurek349: Just read Walt Cunningham's Op Ed in the Houston Chronicle today.
Well, it's certainly easy to spot his political perspective, if nothing else. Presumably he was not responsible for the title of the piece, since Obama is in fact requesting an increase in funding.
mjanovec Member
Posts: 3811 From: Midwest, USA Registered: Jul 2005
posted 02-07-2010 06:40 PM
quote:Originally posted by cjh5801: Presumably he was not responsible for the title of the piece
Let's hope not, because the title ("Slashed budget would decimate agency and leave the U.S. no longer the leader in space") is not only misleading, but completely wrong.
My prediction is that we'll see a new manned spaceflight goal announced by the time the last shuttle mission flies. Bits of Orion and Ares will be saved for that effort, along with a newly proposed heavy lift vehicle design.
SpaceAholic Member
Posts: 5246 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
posted 02-07-2010 07:06 PM
It certainly decimates the HSF component beyond the original shortfall (hence Bolden's requirement to petition Congress for additional money to retain elements of Constellation). Much of the 6 billion plus-up is being apportioned to placating the administrations climate change agenda.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 02-07-2010 07:30 PM
The President's proposed $6 billion increase (spread over the next five years) is dedicated solely to supporting commercial spaceflight development. The increase to the Earth Science budget is derived from within NASA's existing budget level.
issman1 Member
Posts: 1106 From: UK Registered: Apr 2005
posted 02-08-2010 06:05 AM
quote:Originally posted by cjh5801: Well, it's certainly easy to spot his political perspective, if nothing else.
That is what has soured this entire debate. Most supporters of Constellation can't seem to accept the fact it was no longer fit for purpose.
Before February 1, there was no plan to extend the ISS beyond 2015. Yet, Ares I was supposed to fly crew in 2017. And there was no definitive date for launching Ares V, let alone a lunar landing, before 2020. So where was it all heading?
capoetc Member
Posts: 2337 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 02-08-2010 07:50 AM
quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: The President's proposed $6 billion increase (spread over the next five years) is dedicated solely to supporting commercial spaceflight development. The increase to the Earth Science budget is derived from within NASA's existing budget level.
This is an honest question -- I've looked at the budget documents, and I don't see how this statement adds up.
NASA's request for Earth Sciences has remained in the ~$1.4B range. President Obama's budget jacks that number up to $2.3B by 2015.
Also, I think the original plan was for around $3B per year for Constellation until the shuttle stopped flying, and then divert the shuttle money into Constellation (and ferrying crews to ISS until -- whenever). Does the President's 2011 budget request not cut manned space flight funding, as Walt Cunningham's article claims?
The budget overall increases by about $1B per year, but as you stated that money is going into COTS.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 02-08-2010 08:09 AM
quote:Originally posted by capoetc: Also, I think the original plan was for around $3B per year for Constellation until the shuttle stopped flying...
This wasn't the plan; rather it was the recommendation of the Augustine Committee and it was based on the assumption that Orion development would continue at the same time as commercial services being funded.
The Earth Science increase is money being re-appropriated from other areas of NASA's budget, such as the space shuttle's former budget; the $6 billion increase above and beyond that money is what is dedicated to C3P0 (Combined Crew and Cargo Project Office).
Topic Closed
posted 02-05-2010 05:38 AM
advertisement