View Full Version : House rubber stamps NASA Policy
Here's the breakdown as being reported of the passage of the House Bill as it relates to human space flight for NASA.
Thoughts?
<LI itxtvisited="1">An extra shuttle flight, meaning three flights remain before retirement. The extension was important to Kennedy Space Center, where 8,000 workers anticipate losing jobs when the program ends. But the program costs $200 million per month.
<LI itxtvisited="1">$1.6 billion over three years, rather than Obama's $3.6 billion for that period, to spur development of a commercial rocket.
<LI itxtvisited="1">6.9 billion over three years for development of NASA's next rocket, using the existing workforce for the shuttle and Constellation's Ares rocket "to the extent practicable."
klydemorris
09-30-2010, 04:53 PM
ObamaSpace just received a well earned a lethal injection.
This was just another in the line of horrible miscalculations on the part of the Obama Administration. I swear this bunch will not stop dumping classroom-theory social engineering on the American people and having it fed back to them until this academic-in-chief child president is voted out of office
At least Jimmy Carter kept his hands off of the space program.
Agreed. His vision, the way he wanted it, would never have flown. (Pun Intended) For someone who says, why go back to the moon, because we've been there, has no place in forging America's space programs future.
no, it was a lethal injection to Constellation. More of Obamaspace exists in the new policy than CxP.
How so? It's no surprise that Constellation, well, most of it was cut. Obama's dream of commercial space flights budget was cut by two thirds, while giving NASA a go to build an HLV.
I don't see how you arrive at your decision. To me, some of both exist.
klydemorris
10-06-2010, 02:02 PM
Agreed. His vision, the way he wanted it, would never have flown. (Pun Intended) For someone who says, why go back to the moon, because we've been there, has no place in forging America's space programs future.
right Rick
klydemorris
10-06-2010, 02:04 PM
no, it was a lethal injection to Constellation. More of Obamaspace exists in the new policy than CxP.
Just how many of the hearings did you watch Me2? Of the members of Congress who held the hearings all but 5 made statements at one point or another in SUPPORT of Constellation. I know- I watched them ALL, I even transcribed a couple. So how can you even imagine to stretch the result of those hearing into the statement you just made?Your statement here, concerning POR, is TOTALLY incorrect.
You would do well to crawl back under the crack between the carpet and your cube wall and just stay there and look at the three walls, be cause you sure as hell do not have a single clue as to what this process is doing here in DC and you are totally unwilling or unable to learn about it.
Your comments say far more about you than I can, however.
I try and be fair to everyone, I really do. I don't quite understand Jim's viewpoint of this however. The facts do not support his conclusions, as vague as they are.
klydemorris
10-07-2010, 02:35 PM
Part of his problem is Constellation phobia- spread via the internet. The fact is that the Senate bill IS in large part Constellation without the name. The bill does not even direct the cancellation of the Ares I. It in fact stands silent on its continuation. Does that mean that a manned Ares I will fly- highly unlikely. Does it mean that some other Ares I-X style of vehicle could be developed? The bill does not say yes or no. Does this bill provide funding for another Ares I-X? No- because this bill is not a funding tool.
What has been shaved to a stubble is ObamaSpace. There is only enough of it left in this bill to politically draw ink from Obama's pen. Politically this bill is a solid REBUKE of ObamaSpace and provides little more than a paper smiley face for him to wear while he signs it. The House may trim away even more ObamaSpace in the lame duck session as well.
Watch the Congress- ignore Me2.
Read this:
(Source: Space Politics)
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) credited his colleague, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), for ensuring that NASA Marshall Space Flight Center would have a leading role in the new exploration plan through the development of an heavy-lift launch vehicle (HLV) in the authorization bill passed by Congress. “We got the best language we could get in the authorization bill,” he told the paper. “We worked hard to get that in; there was a lot of resistance to it.”
That statement is a little curious, since Shelby indicated that he was a little unhappy with the HLV language in the bill. “I remain concerned with the limiting direction set forth on the heavy lift rocket’s design,” he said in a statement last week after the House passed the bill. “NASA must not deliver a rocket that is simply a shuttle without wings. This would not represent a step forward for innovation or for the future of our space program.” (10/6)
My question is, would Marshall be involved in the Obama commercial launch vehicle plan, that has been cut by two thirds?
Note the keyword NASA.
This is an excellent article.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1706/1
Here's an excerpt:
"The administration sought a sharp break from the past with a new program that emphasized capabilities over destinations, but got a sharp rebuke from Congress. The result is an authorization bill that is a compromise: some support for commercial crew and technology development, but also for an HLV to be developed in the near-term rather than later, as originally proposed."
klydemorris
10-09-2010, 10:01 PM
Again- another informed published account that shows Me2 does not know what he is talking about. Which gives me the chance to once again say the words he simply cannot stand, but throws at everyone else as much as he can- Me2... YOU ARE WRONG!
And MSFC (NASA)will get plenty out of the SLS. My only question is how many contractor employees at the assorted centers will get transferred from Constellation and how soon. A lot of those workers saw their dreams of working in the space progran shattered by Obama- and for no good reason other than he and his hand full of bootlickers thought they were politically in the position to pull it off. Some of us saw right away that they'd never get away with it- but the big concern was, from those of us who know how the Congress really works and how much time the process takes, how much damage would be done before the ObamaSpace proposal could be stopped, gutted and turned around. Frankly- that's still in question.
spacefan
10-21-2010, 03:17 PM
The Obama presidency is not shaping up too well, so it seems. Considering NASA's recent performance managing Constellation what confidence can anyone have that any sort of HLV will be on shedule and on budget?
spacefan
10-21-2010, 04:08 PM
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/10/direct-handover-movement-leaders-work-complete/
It seems that Direct are claiming a victory of sorts.
klydemorris
10-25-2010, 06:28 PM
Only history will really tell if the Direct folks got their way or if the final config of the SLS will just happen to look like one of their Jupiter vehicles. IMO what you have here is simply a very logical derivation of the STS stack crossed by a down-sized Ares V rather than an historic brainstorm of the John Houbolt ilk. Yet, if the SLS "looks" ANYTHING like any of the Jupiters, the Direct folks will take as much credit as they can get. Frankly, until they fully disclose the names and positions of all of this so-called secret team of "NASA engineers" who have been said to have been developing these Jupiter boosters, a lot of people who do not get all of their facts from the internet, including me, will remain skepitcial about Direct actually having been the roots for the SLS rather than simple coincidence.
BTW, I'm the head of a secret team of aeronautical engineers who are working on a better design of a new corporate jet... it'll have 2 engines, a "T" tail and winglets. Hey! How about that, our idea was just introduced at NBAA! Please give credit to us.
Again- another informed published account that shows Me2 does not know what he is talking about. Which gives me the chance to once again say the words he simply cannot stand, but throws at everyone else as much as he can- Me2... YOU ARE WRONG!
.
Again, I am shown to be right.
Part of his problem is Constellation phobia- spread via the internet. The fact is that the Senate bill IS in large part Constellation without the name. The bill does not even direct the cancellation of the Ares I. It in fact stands silent on its continuation. Does that mean that a manned Ares I will fly- highly unlikely. Does it mean that some other Ares I-X style of vehicle could be developed? The bill does not say yes or no. Does this bill provide funding for another Ares I-X? No- because this bill is not a funding tool.
What has been shaved to a stubble is ObamaSpace. There is only enough of it left in this bill to politically draw ink from Obama's pen. Politically this bill is a solid REBUKE of ObamaSpace and provides little more than a paper smiley face for him to wear while he signs it. The House may trim away even more ObamaSpace in the lame duck session as well.
Watch the Congress- ignore Me2.
Ignore klyde, he has constellation on the brain and can't see reality.
Part of his problem is Constellation phobia- spread via the internet.
.
It has nothing to do with the internet, I saw Constellation problems daily in person.
camelopardalis
01-14-2011, 11:28 AM
Ok me2 You've convinced me now.
Constellation and Ares-I are dead.
But let's google around ...
Take a break until November 12, 2012
Find an available well equiped launchpad (39B (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1256.html) , just round the corner)
Find a "new in a box" mobile launcher platform (Didn't I see one next to the VAB (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/components/photo/_new/100224-space-constellation-bcol-5p.grid-6x3.jpg)?)
Find a tested solid 5 seg SRB (Promontory, UT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM4gaWo--fU&feature=player_profilepage))
Find a second stage efficient gas generator engine (J2X (http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/newui/blog/viewpostlist.jsp?blogname=J2X))
Put a "2012 model" crew module on top (Orion crew module (http://space.about.com/b/2010/10/12/orion-capsule-could-see-first-test-flights-by-2013.htm))
Use radius block stiffeners where applicable !!
Find a motivated well equiped workforce (http://www.nasa.gov/about/sites/index.html) to put the thing together
Call it Direct-4.0 (just to make you happy)
Put Mike Moses and his team in Firing room no 1 (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/flighttests/aresIx/firing_room_one.html)
Call Kathy Winters for some dry weather at the cape
Fly in MacGyver to fix GUCP Problems
And liftoff ... into an new erra of HSF
Find an available well equiped launchpad. - It will not be equipped, it will stripped to a bare concrete pyramid.
Find a "new in a box" mobile launcher platform - See above, it will just be a unfinished tower. No systems, no umbilical arms, no fluid lines, no data lines, etc. It needs another $250 million work in outfitting
Find a tested solid 5 seg SRB - A couple of firings is not "tested" It needs like 3-5 more firings to be tested for use.
Find a second stage efficient gas generator engine - wont' be flight ready until 2015
Use radius block stiffeners where applicable - A bad solution for a bad design
Find a motivated well equiped workforce to put the thing together -there are many of those on the cape
Put Mike Moses and his team - see above
Call Kathy Winters for some dry weather at the cape - works for any launch vehicle.
And liftoff ... into an new era of HSF
which is going to be a "2013 model" crew module (Orion crew module (http://space.about.com/b/2010/10/12/orion-capsule-could-see-first-test-flights-by-2013.htm)) on top of a Delta IV Heavy
Possibly. An HLV is still viable for SLS a year later.
camelopardalis
01-14-2011, 05:15 PM
Me2,
You sounds like a Human-Rated Delta IV Heavy is already COTS. It is estimated to take at least 3.5 to 5 years to get the Delta IV-H certified. This effectively means re-design hardware, software, procedures. So just like an new SRB it will need multiple test runs.
At the moment you may be right about costs but my far most concern for HSF is safety. The Constellation program has HSF-safety in its roots (10 times safer than the shuttle) The design team used a valid paradigm, "keep is simple" and decided a solid as first stage is the way to go.
To put an Orion crew module on top of a Delta IV-H and to consider swapping the RL-10 for a J2X in the plans that are currently discussed proves the sanity of the original Constellation design decisions.
In the past months we have seen how the culture of the NASA changed in the 25 years since Challenger. The team effort made to not only repair ET-137 but find root cause and flight rationale is proof of a HSF-certified team, lead by safety-aware managers. This excelent and motivated team is now dismantled. The current culture will be replaced by a more commercial and probably in the future more political influenced decission proces. I'm convinced safety will have to compete with economics and status again.
And last but not least, a Delta IV-HEAVY will not have the esthetics of a slim Ares-I vehicle :) At least agree on this last point
Me2,
1.
You sounds like a Human-Rated Delta IV Heavy is already COTS. It is estimated to take at least 3.5 to 5 years to get the Delta IV-H certified. This effectively means re-design hardware, software, procedures. So just like an new SRB it will need multiple test runs.
2.
At the moment you may be right about costs but my far most concern for HSF is safety. The Constellation program has HSF-safety in its roots (10 times safer than the shuttle) The design team used a valid paradigm, "keep is simple" and decided a solid as first stage is the way to go.
3.
To put an Orion crew module on top of a Delta IV-H and to consider swapping the RL-10 for a J2X in the plans that are currently discussed proves the sanity of the original Constellation design decisions.
4.
In the past months we have seen how the culture of the NASA changed in the 25 years since Challenger. The team effort made to not only repair ET-137 but find root cause and flight rationale is proof of a HSF-certified team, lead by safety-aware managers. This excelent and motivated team is now dismantled. The current culture will be replaced by a more commercial and probably in the future more political influenced decission proces. I'm convinced safety will have to compete with economics and status again.
5.
And last but not least, a Delta IV-HEAVY will not have the esthetics of a slim Ares-I vehicle :) At least agree on this last point
1. Those are bogus numbers provided by the pro Ares camp. OSP was going to do quicker and cheaper. As for test runs, the changes can be tested on satellite delivery launches.
2. Ares I safety is not 10 times safer than the shuttle. But add an LAS to any vehicle and it will be safer than the shuttle. And Ares design paradigm was not keep it simple, it was use existing people and facilities to keep 10 healthy centers. "radius block stiffeners" is the opposite of keeping it simple. It means the design is poor. Ares I will not fly enough times to make the design safety factor meaningful. Process factors have a greater influence on reliability (safety) than design reliability due to the low number of flights. As for "costs", again Ares I is not worth the extra billions for the minor increase .4% in design safety. Also, why do launch vehicles have to be safer for gov't NASA astronauts. Commercial vehicle will be carrying commercial astronauts and they will not be meeting the silly requirements for Ares I. Any ways, NASA manned rating requirements had to be relaxed for Ares I.
3. You could not be more wrong. There is no consideration for using the J-2 with the Delta IV and it is not doable. And it has nothing to do with original Constellation design decisions , it is totally independent. Actually, J-2 is the second choice, a poor runner up, the SSME was the first choice.
4. Wrong,
A. The fact that the wrong material got into the vehicle shows that there is a problem. If it wasn't for a GUCP problem, with a scrub, this problem would have gone unseen and might have caused some inflight problems
B. Changing out the ET should be the decision.
C. As Griffin
5. Actually, it is the opposite. Ares I is an ugly vehicle, it has the wrong proportions and looks more like the German "Potato Masher" hand grenade.
You realize Me2 that if your posts weren't filled with obvious bias, your thoughts would carry a lot more weight to those reading them.
You realize Me2 that if your posts weren't filled with obvious bias, your thoughts would carry a lot more weight to those reading them.
It isn't bias, it is the truth and engineering fact.
camelopardalis
01-16-2011, 10:54 AM
1. Those are bogus numbers provided by the pro Ares camp. OSP was going to do quicker and cheaper. As for test runs, the changes can be tested on satellite delivery launches.
2. Ares I safety is not 10 times safer than the shuttle. But add an LAS to any vehicle and it will be safer than the shuttle. And Ares design paradigm was not keep it simple, it was use existing people and facilities to keep 10 healthy centers. "radius block stiffeners" is the opposite of keeping it simple. It means the design is poor. Ares I will not fly enough times to make the design safety factor meaningful. Process factors have a greater influence on reliability (safety) than design reliability due to the low number of flights. As for "costs", again Ares I is not worth the extra billions for the minor increase .4% in design safety. Also, why do launch vehicles have to be safer for gov't NASA astronauts. Commercial vehicle will be carrying commercial astronauts and they will not be meeting the silly requirements for Ares I. Any ways, NASA manned rating requirements had to be relaxed for Ares I.
3. You could not be more wrong. There is no consideration for using the J-2 with the Delta IV and it is not doable. And it has nothing to do with original Constellation design decisions , it is totally independent. Actually, J-2 is the second choice, a poor runner up, the SSME was the first choice.
4. Wrong,
A. The fact that the wrong material got into the vehicle shows that there is a problem. If it wasn't for a GUCP problem, with a scrub, this problem would have gone unseen and might have caused some inflight problems
B. Changing out the ET should be the decision.
C. As Griffin
5. Actually, it is the opposite. Ares I is an ugly vehicle, it has the wrong proportions and looks more like the German "Potato Masher" hand grenade.
June 2009, "Human-Rated Delta IV Heavy Study, Constellation Architecture Impacts (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/377875main_081109%20Human%20Rated%20Delta%20IV.pdf)" NASA Launch Systems Division, David A. Bearden et All. pro Ares??
If you don't have the drive to "boldly go where no one has gone before" and stay in LEO, OSP would have been a viable, cheaper option to visit ISS. Mankind had more ambition and came up with Constellation.
So the Nov 2005, "NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture Study, Final Report (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/ESAS_report.html)" is in your opinion 752 pages of biast amateur reading, written by some amateur rocket scientists?
OK, Delta IV launch is never scrubbed to fix technical problems and never needed modifications.:rolleyes:
In fact all launch vehicles are complex machines that work on the edge of technology. It is just the fact that they did not change out the ET, but had the processes and skills in place to find root cause as they did that shows its the right team with the right procedures for HSF.
HSF is all about balancing ambition with cost and safety.
We will probably never agree about the right balance.
1. June 2009, "Human-Rated Delta IV Heavy Study, Constellation Architecture Impacts (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/377875main_081109%20Human%20Rated%20Delta%20IV.pdf)" NASA Launch Systems Division, David A. Bearden et All. pro Ares??
2. If you don't have the drive to "boldly go where no one has gone before" and stay in LEO, OSP would have been a viable, cheaper option to visit ISS. Mankind had more ambition and came up with Constellation.
3. So the Nov 2005, "NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture Study, Final Report (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/ESAS_report.html)" is in your opinion 752 pages of biast amateur reading, written by some amateur rocket scientists?
4. OK, Delta IV launch is never scrubbed to fix technical problems and never needed modifications.:rolleyes:
In fact all launch vehicles are complex machines that work on the edge of technology. It is just the fact that they did not change out the ET, but had the processes and skills in place to find root cause as they did that shows its the right team with the right procedures for HSF.
5. HSF is all about balancing ambition with cost and safety.
We will probably never agree about the right balance.
1. All. pro Ares?? most definitively. The study was paid for by the Ares and Constellation program.
2. No, you can not make that conclusion. OSP would have been a stepping stone. OSP could have evolved into a CEV. Also, we would not have a HSF gap if OSP continued. Mankind can not afford Constellation nor is it NASA's or the US Gov't job to set up a lunar base.
3. Yes, on many counts. a. The results of the "study" was predetermined. B. 90 days is too short for such a study. c. It was wrong on many things; SSME and 4 segement SRM for Ares I, Orion weight and diameter, Ares V size,etc. d. Stiedel's spirals were the right way. It was pay as you go. e. MSFC doesn't have launch vehicle experts anymore, they are in industry.
4. No, they take boosters down vs holding to schedule pressures. That is the problem, it is not completely known that root cause is not evident elsewhere. There was an escape.
5. There was no balancing in the first places. Just bogus numbers being thrown out there. NASA HSF doesn't know anything about safety anyways, much less cost. balancing ambition with cost and safety is done all the time in industry, see airlines. If, no better, Since the FAA is going to allow commercial astronauts to flight on commercial vehicles what makes NASA astronauts more precious than anyone else.
klydemorris
01-26-2011, 06:57 PM
@Me2
>>3. Yes, on many counts. a. The results of the "study" was predetermined. B. 90 days is too short for such a study.<<
I always love this one... ESAS was invalid, BUT Augustine, which was equally or perhaps even more skewed, is golden... because it gave the results those of Me2's ilk wanted to hear.
@Me2
I always love this one... ESAS was invalid, BUT Augustine, which was equally or perhaps even more skewed, is golden... because it gave the results those of Me2's ilk wanted to hear.
Only someone from the unwashed masses would think that. Augustine used data collected over years and was validated.
The end result would have happened no matter who was in office. CxP was going to collapse.
The end did not justify the means.
klydemorris
01-28-2011, 05:48 PM
Me2-You see any program that does not put a paycheck in your own pocket as being flawed and invalid plus a waste. I know- I've read your venom all over the net.
Me2-You see any program that does not put a paycheck in your own pocket as being flawed and invalid plus a waste. I know- I've read your venom all over the net.
So what about the venom, it is well deserved and not misplaced.
Spacehab was flawed and put a paycheck in my pocket, but I left.
Shuttle was flawed and put a paycheck in my pocket so I left.
CXP was flawed so I avoided it.
JimMcDade
02-13-2011, 01:23 PM
Richard Nixon is laughing in his grave. His flawed Space Shuttle decision is finally bringing US human spaceflight to an end. John Holdren is calling the shots for now and he is not going to allow any NASA administrator to propose anything close to a significant exploration program. We have witnessed, in effect,the cancellation of NASA human spaceflight. The opponents of Constellation were played like a $1.00 harmonica by this White House.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.