White House orders review of NASA plans

[Inside KSC News Feeds]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss_050919_moonmission/ss_050919_moonmission_tease.thumb.jpg (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30625967/)The White House has ordered a complete outside review of NASA's manned space program, including plans to return astronauts to the moon.




More... (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30625967/)

[Rick]

Man, Obama is scaring me, bigtime. Again he's changed is position on Constellation....sheesh.

[Me2]

It about time, this was long over due. ESAS is abortion and its spawn, Ares I, a kludge

[Rick]

It about time, this was long over due. ESAS is abortion and its spawn, Ares I, a kludge

Say what you must, but this news is not specific to just Ares Me2. I am sure you are aware of that.

[klydemorris]

And if the board comes back and says that NASA should stay the course and continue with the Ares I? What will ya' say then?

Here are a few advanced gusses:

1)The board was paid off or influanced or both by ATK.
2) THEY must be a part of the conspiracy too(adjusting tinfoil hat)
3) They used invalid data that did not give (your favored) EELV a fair chance.
4) NASA is doomed because of this board... if only they'd have listened to me... why does no one ever listen to me... I know everything that there is to know (shouted at traffic).

[Me2]

And if the board comes back and says that NASA should stay the course and continue with the Ares I?


It won't. There wouldn't be a review if it was "ok"

[klydemorris]

I love your "Can't be wrong" argument Me2. If the board says to stay the course, they're corrupted or part of the grand canspiracy and you have been right all along, because the board should never have existed if that is their out come, thus if they say "keep going" their existance was a sham from the first place. If they change to some other vehicle, you were right all along. No matter what the outcome, folks of you ilk have set up the argument so that they cannot lose. How very blog.

An argument which is framed so that the person making the statement cannot be wrong, is not an argument at all. It is of zero value in the discussion.

[JimMcDade]

This review panel is going to work for sixty days. The report won't come back until at least September- after Ares I-X. If Ares I-X veers toward the VAB and destroys the LCC, EELV and Direct might have a legitimate shot.

[Rick]

Is it September or August that the results are supposed to be released? I heard August.

[spacefan]

I saw Elon Musk present Falcon9 and the Dragon capsule to the review panel and it seemed to be well recieved. EM was confident that he could beat ULA in terms of cost, and that in flying cargo missions to ISS, he would be able refine and perfect the manned version of dragon as it was a virtually identical spacecraft to the cargo version.

Looking at the SpaceX website it seems that they are a very serious company with a lot of ambition. If the US is going to be stuck in LEO whats so special about orion anyway?

[Rick]

Orion is the CSM, so to speak, not the launch vehicle.

What is special about Ares, is they've spent a ton of money and time on it for 5 years at this point. It would be pointless to throw it all away at this point.

[spacefan]

Orion is the CSM, so to speak, not the launch vehicle.

What is special about Ares, is they've spent a ton of money and time on it for 5 years at this point. It would be pointless to throw it all away at this point.

Granted if the mission is still the moon and beyond. However what if US ambition is scaled back to maintaining manned access to ISS only?

If falcon 9 and Dragon can do that particular mission cheaper, sooner and better (7 astronauts as opposed to 4) than Ares1 and Orion then shouldn't they be cancelled and the money invested elswhere.

The fact that you've spent billions already is no justification to spend billions more when a cheaper alternative presents itself. Of course Orion could be launched on a man rated EELV whilst Elon Musk claimed he could come in cheaper than ULA other considerations may have a bearing on what system gets adopted.

[Rick]

If the President is naive enough to cancel exploration beyond low earth orbit, than anything and everything should be examined to get to the ISS, which is still by the way anguishing in low earth orbit.

I do agree with you there.

The fact that the US has spent billions on a vehicle that has NOT been disproven to work, is more the reason to try, don't you think?

How much would it cost the American taxpaying community to start over again?

Thanks for the thoughtful debate. :)

[JimMcDade]

A thorough examination of the cost estimates for the alternatives indicates that they are actually MORE expensive that continuing Ares I to completion.

The Augustine commission picked up this fact before that first public hearing. I hear that ULA's numbers got a thorough going over last week in Decatur and that ULA did not look so smart when it was over. I can't say who told me that, so you can count it as unconfirmed rumor or hearsay until we read the actual historical account of the meetings one of these days. Unlike some of the people that we have heard from, I don't present rumors as incontrovertible fact. I can't prove that my source isn't fibbing.

Some further observations:

The sunk costs of Ares I and Ares V have to be added to the total cost of making a switch to an alternative. The alternative advocates don't like to hear that, but that is the way things work with the federal bean counters. That is a major negative for the alternatives.

This commission is highly qualified. They have mastery across multiple fields ranging from vector mechanics to fiscal analysis. The alternatives are facing an uphill battle.

Don't forget that the Obama administration reserves the right to reject or accept the recommendations contained in the final report. Politics is still the wild card.

[Rick]

The Obama Administration needs to FINALLY have a NASA Administrator in place. How many months has it been now, 7?

I have little faith in the US Presidents commitment to human spaceflight. It is VERY sad and disturbing.

[klydemorris]

True words Rick- the administration is not just indifferent toward human spaceflight, but will follow the traditional left-wing path (As they've done in almost everything else so far) of being hostile toward it. What I expect is that the ISS will be the only destination and the objective will be to conduct the junk science relating to the myth of anthropogenic global warming and NOTHING more. It will be a no green- no green mentality for at least the next 3.5 years- that is: no work on green subjects and no greenbacks for your agency. It's much like living in the old world in the 14th century- if you wanted to conduct planitary science the results better come out saying that the universe revolves around the earth- otherwise the powers that be politically will shut you down.

Then, after Obama gets kicked out of office, the next administration will deliver even more bad news. The insane spending of Obama will have to be rolled back and that means every government agency will see budget cuts and some will see just plain elimination. NASA will see big cuts in budget, but, like Reagan, such cuts will likely see human spaceflight protected to a degree as the pride of the United States people will need to be rebuilt. The only question is how much of the Human Spaceflight Program will be left after Obama? Expect also a purge of the Congress a year and a half from now- and expect NASA to lose a few friends in it too. Indeed the wild card is political.

[spacefan]

If the President is naive enough to cancel exploration beyond low earth orbit, than anything and everything should be examined to get to the ISS, which is still by the way anguishing in low earth orbit.

I do agree with you there.

The fact that the US has spent billions on a vehicle that has NOT been disproven to work, is more the reason to try, don't you think?

How much would it cost the American taxpaying community to start over again?

Thanks for the thoughtful debate. :)

Does the president have the final say? I thought congress had controll of the purse strings. I'm not advocating any particular system, I just want a permanent human presence on the moon. I dont care what system gets us there or indeed which country.

I have no doubt Ares 1 will fly, the technical problems will be overcome. I dont think obama will kill it as the politcal fight needed to do so would burn too much goodwill on the hill, goodwill he will need to deliver more ambitious parts of his program.

However Ares V may be well be too vulnerable in the current economic crisis, and thats the rocket I really want to see fly.

[spacefan]

True words Rick- the administration is not just indifferent toward human spaceflight, but will follow the traditional left-wing path (As they've done in almost everything else so far) of being hostile toward it. What I expect is that the ISS will be the only destination and the objective will be to conduct the junk science relating to the myth of anthropogenic global warming and NOTHING more. It will be a no green- no green mentality for at least the next 3.5 years- that is: no work on green subjects and no greenbacks for your agency. It's much like living in the old world in the 14th century- if you wanted to conduct planitary science the results better come out saying that the universe revolves around the earth- otherwise the powers that be politically will shut you down.

Are you trying to say CO2 is not a greenhouse gas :confused:. And I suppose
you dont believe polar ice sheets are melting. The overwealming scientific consensus is that man made global warming is a reality and is pretty much here to stay the only question is how hot do you want it to get? Its much like living in the old world in the 16th century - standing on the quayside when the magellan expedition returned after circumnavigating the globe telling everyone the earth is flat:D

[Rick]

Does the president have the final say? I thought congress had controll of the purse strings. I'm not advocating any particular system, I just want a permanent human presence on the moon. I dont care what system gets us there or indeed which country.

I have no doubt Ares 1 will fly, the technical problems will be overcome. I dont think obama will kill it as the politcal fight needed to do so would burn too much goodwill on the hill, goodwill he will need to deliver more ambitious parts of his program.

However Ares V may be well be too vulnerable in the current economic crisis, and thats the rocket I really want to see fly.

Congress does hold the purse strings, but the President does have say as to what direction NASA is going in. It was his administrations idea to form the Augustine Commission in the first place.

I'd assume that he'd follow the panels recommendation, otherwise, it would have been a complete waste of money, and in the end damage NASA's credibility for no good reason at all.

I do agree with the rest of your pursuits by the way. I'd love to see humans back on the moon at a minimum, before I drop dead from old age.

[JimMcDade]

Rick, Perhaps we should create a NASA and Climate Science forum. That will allow people to debate that issue without bringing those arguments to other forums like this one.

It's a worn out cliche', but the only thing that has been constant over the approximate 4.5 billion existence of this planet is change. I regret that climate change has become so politicized, but it is an important subject regardless of whether one believes that the causes are natural or artificial.

The bottom line is that this relatively friendly climate that we presently enjoy is not going to last forever, no matter what causes climate change. Both sides of the debate can find agree on that fact. We should agree that planetary science studies cannot thrive and improve without a robust space program.

I admit that I don't know enough about the complex climate of Earth to take a firm stand either way. I think that we learn as much about Earth as we do other planets when we study other planets where atmospheric dynamics are at work.

Climate is also influenced by other factors such as planetary magnetic fields, orbital mechanics, solar activity, and probably by other influences that we have not discovered yet. If we focus solely on "Missions to Planet Earth" we will retard the progress of climate studies.

I have seen bad science from both sides of the debate about climate change. Weather is still an observational science. That is a limitation since climatologists can't do real experimentation. We can create very nice climate models, but modeling a system as complex as Earth is still far beyond our capabilities.

So, here I am sitting on the fence, dodging the rocks thrown back and forth between those of you who enjoy some degree of certainty about climate change.

[Me2]

1. A thorough examination of the cost estimates for the alternatives indicates that they are actually MORE expensive that continuing Ares I to completion.

The Augustine commission picked up this fact before that first public hearing.

2. I hear that ULA's numbers got a thorough going over last week in Decatur and that ULA did not look so smart when it was over. I can't say who told me that, so you can count it as unconfirmed rumor or hearsay until we read the actual historical account of the meetings one of these days. Unlike some of the people that we have heard from, I don't present rumors as incontrovertible fact. I can't prove that my source isn't fibbing.

Some further observations:

3. The sunk costs of Ares I and Ares V have to be added to the total cost of making a switch to an alternative. The alternative advocates don't like to hear that, but that is the way things work with the federal bean counters. That is a major negative for the alternatives.


1. Incorrect. All alternatives are cheaper

2. Opposite of what I heard. ULA numbers were blessed by NASA back in 2005.

3. Incorrect, only the costs going forward are considered. Sunk costs have no meaning.

[Me2]

Rick, Perhaps we should create a NASA and Climate Science forum. That will allow people to debate that issue without bringing those arguments to other forums like this one.

It's a worn out cliche', but the only thing that has been constant over the approximate 4.5 billion existence of this planet is change. I regret that climate change has become so politicized, but it is an important subject regardless of whether one believes that the causes are natural or artificial.

The bottom line is that this relatively friendly climate that we presently enjoy is not going to last forever, no matter what causes climate change. Both sides of the debate can find agree on that fact. We should agree that planetary science studies cannot thrive and improve without a robust space program.

I admit that I don't know enough about the complex climate of Earth to take a firm stand either way. I think that we learn as much about Earth as we do other planets when we study other planets where atmospheric dynamics are at work.

Climate is also influenced by other factors such as planetary magnetic fields, orbital mechanics, solar activity, and probably by other influences that we have not discovered yet. If we focus solely on "Missions to Planet Earth" we will retard the progress of climate studies.

I have seen bad science from both sides of the debate about climate change. Weather is still an observational science. That is a limitation since climatologists can't do real experimentation. We can create very nice climate models, but modeling a system as complex as Earth is still far beyond our capabilities.

So, here I am sitting on the fence, dodging the rocks thrown back and forth between those of you who enjoy some degree of certainty about climate change.

Help me I am gagging. I....... a......gree......

With one caveat, NASA is studying "planetary magnetic fields, orbital mechanics, solar activity, etc" as part of MTPE.

[klydemorris]

Are you trying to say CO2 is not a greenhouse gas :confused:. And I suppose
you dont believe polar ice sheets are melting. The overwealming scientific consensus is that man made global warming is a reality and is pretty much here to stay the only question is how hot do you want it to get? Its much like living in the old world in the 16th century - standing on the quayside when the magellan expedition returned after circumnavigating the globe telling everyone the earth is flat:D

In order to make CO2 a greenhouse gas, one needs only to change the definition of "greenhouse gas" which is what the hucksters of AGW do whenever it suits them.

Speaking as someone who has a degree in Science, and who actually has formal training in atmospherics of the earth (Yes, I have done the formula for calculating geostrophic wind) as wellas someone who spent more than 2 decades flying around in the atmosphere, plus someone who has made a second career studying 200+ years of shipwrecks- and the weather that often causes such... I can safely reply that YES, I know that ANTHROPOGENIC (an important word in my statement) Global Warming is a myth- it has the same level of science to it as a horoscope. NASA, I predict, will soon be sent out looking to prove that what does not exist, exists.

Unfortunately, many people have taken their belief in this junk science to the point of religion- you have my pity.

[JimMcDade]

Me2 says:

1. Incorrect. All alternatives are cheaper

2. Opposite of what I heard. ULA numbers were blessed by NASA back in 2005.

3. Incorrect, only the costs going forward are considered. Sunk costs have no meaning.

Jim answers:

1- That's still being debated by the people who are being asked to make a recommendation.

2- You may be right, but my source says that one of the Augustine fellows was very unsatisfied with both the ULA budget and schedule numbers. We will see. NASA might have blessed those numbers but at least one mean old guy (that's a clue) doesn't like them according to one witness.

3- Me2, I am not an expert on cost accounting (or anything else, for that matter), but the GAAP are the standard by which the program costs are measured. Sunk costs are included in the total cost for change. It does not seem fair, but that's the way it is.

[JimMcDade]

We could have Climate Change as a sub-forum of MTPE.

Brief levity to relieve the tension: At age 55, I produce substantial greenhouse gases around the clock. Where do farts go? I know that they can travel horizontally and vertically. Is there a fartosphere 19 miles above the ground?

Seriously, I remember reading in 1968 or so that Co2 comprised about .03% of the atmosphere. I think that figure is basically unchanged today, but that there is an observable increase in terms of ppm.

[Rick]

Help me I am gagging. I....... a......gree......

With one caveat, NASA is studying "planetary magnetic fields, orbital mechanics, solar activity, etc" as part of MTPE.

Wow, a momentous occasion! :eek:


Think of a name for the forum, and its there.

[spacefan]

In order to make CO2 a greenhouse gas, one needs only to change the definition of "greenhouse gas" which is what the hucksters of AGW do whenever it suits them.

Speaking as someone who has a degree in Science, and who actually has formal training in atmospherics of the earth (Yes, I have done the formula for calculating geostrophic wind) as wellas someone who spent more than 2 decades flying around in the atmosphere, plus someone who has made a second career studying 200+ years of shipwrecks- and the weather that often causes such... I can safely reply that YES, I know that ANTHROPOGENIC (an important word in my statement) Global Warming is a myth- it has the same level of science to it as a horoscope. NASA, I predict, will soon be sent out looking to prove that what does not exist, exists

Unfortunately, many people have taken their belief in this junk science to the point of religion- you have my pity.

Infidel, Has Micheal Jackson taught you nothing:mad:

[spacefan]

We could have Climate Change as a sub-forum of MTPE.

Brief levity to relieve the tension: At age 55, I produce substantial greenhouse gases around the clock. Where do farts go? I know that they can travel horizontally and vertically. Is there a fartosphere 19 miles above the ground?

Seriously, I remember reading in 1968 or so that Co2 comprised about .03% of the atmosphere. I think that figure is basically unchanged today, but that there is an observable increase in terms of ppm.

Your absolutely right Methane is a for more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, You really should try to hold it in for the sake of the planet.:D

[JimMcDade]

How about "Earth Science Missions" for a forum name. Climate Change and Weather could be one sub-forum. Mission and Science News Updates could be another sub-forum.

[Rick]

Done.

[spacefan]

In his presentation to the review panel Elon Musk made the point that all being well with falcon 9 and dragon they could service ISS allowing Nasa to go beyond LEO.

What does everyone think about that state of affairs? And whats to stop them taking DoD launches if they are significantly cheaper than ULA?

How can boeing and Lockheed Martin respond to that?

[klydemorris]

Brief levity to relieve the tension: At age 55, I produce substantial greenhouse gases around the clock. Where do farts go? I know that they can travel horizontally and vertically. Is there a fartosphere 19 miles above the ground?

Actually those of us who have spent way, WAY too many heartbeats in the nose of a flying machine far above the surface of the earth call it the "Phewisphere" and it seems to vary in altitude depending on the age of crew members and where and what they ate recently. OT- side story- I once flew with a guy named "Z-man" who was famed for his atmospheric additives. We were on a 2 hour hop and just leveled into cruise when I felt one of the vents from his side blowing on my forehead... before I could reach my mask it hit me like I was in the trenches on WWI. A moment later I was on 02 and half gagging into the mask while he giggled. After a few minutes there's a knock on the door and the FA opens it with her key and gets one whif and almost upchucks before retreating. The she calls on the phone and asked what the &%$# is goin' on up there? He just laughs and tells her it was me and not him- she didn't buy it... because I was the one with the mask on. I believe we were leaving a green contrail- which still hangs over Iowa to this day... NASA will likely end up studying that.


Back on topic- Jim is correct, the comission has the most say in all of this right now (aside from Obama). Oddly in reading around the internet, it is interesting to see that fans of each system think that their favored system did the best in front of the comission.

[JimMcDade]

Lockheed Martin has a good reason for pushing Atlas V for Project Constellation before the Augustine Commission. The DoD is on the verge of canceling LMs six-billion dollar Joint Air-to-Surface-Standoff Missile missile contract. That would be a serious blow to that aerospace giant.

The USAF says four out of the ten LM missiles tested so far failed to either detonate or impact on target. That's a dismal 40% failure rate since testing began last November.

LM could lose four billion dollars in future orders outright if the Joint Air-to-Surface-Standoff Missile contract is canceled. It is unfortunate that more than 600 of these shoddy missiles have already been deployed by the USAF.

If LM can't correct this cruise missile problem, the company should be forced to reimburse the USAF for the missiles that have already been delivered. Even if LM fixes the problem, they will have to eat the cost of implementing the fixes in the more than 600 missiles LM has already delivered.

[Rick]

To me, this is a personal battle when it comes to contractors. Obviously, those embedded in a bidding contractor will push for their own product.

The only vehicle that is not in that position is Jupiter Direct.

What does that tell you?

[spacefan]

To me, this is a personal battle when it comes to contractors. Obviously, those embedded in a bidding contractor will push for their own product.

The only vehicle that is not in that position is Jupiter Direct.

What does that tell you?

That there aint nobody looking to build thier rockets?

[Rick]

Yep, that's my opinion.