Clark Lindsey has a summary of the direction that the new space policy seems to be taking, based on Space News reporting:
/– NASA not likely to get the boost in budget of $3B that the Augustine panel recommends
/– Looking for ways to save money and a Deep Space Option sort of approach with no early landings on the Moon or Mars. Instead, asteroid visits and flybys.
/– ISS will be extended to 2020
/– A commercial crew competition program would get $2.5B as the panel recommends.
[/– Deep space exploration projects would get $1B starting in 2012-2013 time frame.]
/– Will also try to save money by using fixed-price contracts rather than cost-plus.
/– Looking at the possibility of a private contractor operating the ISS
/– R&D will get ~$800M rather that the $1.5B recommended by the panel.
/– Ares 1 will probably be axed. Orion could survive as a backup to a commercial capsule.
/– An amended NASA budget will be submitted to Congress in mid-Sept.
It seems much more promising, and budgetarily plausible, than Constellation ever was. I wonder how, and where, they plan to implement the fixed-price procurements? There’s no mention of robotics, but it would be nice to see some ISRU demos on the lunar surface. If successful, they would provide a lot of leverage for lunar landings. This might be a good prize program — land something on the surface that can generate TBD lbs/hour of LOX (and possibly LH2 as well).
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s an NBC news report, with complaints about job losses. And Andy Pasztor has a story at the Journal:
A presidentially appointed commission on the future of U.S. manned space efforts is wrapping up a study urging the White House to rely on commercial transportation of both cargo and crew to the space station. The commission, which presented its initial findings to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and senior White House science aides earlier this month, wants President Barack Obama to revitalize NASA by getting it out of the routine business of shuttle operations: launching to and returning from low-Earth orbit.
Instead, the commission recommends NASA rely on a combination of commercial and government-developed technologies to explore deeper into space. The study group, for example, wants NASA to start working on ways to combat the rigors of cosmic radiation, lengthy travel times and other challenges presented by possible manned missions to nearby planets and outside the solar system.
In the shorter term, companies expected to benefit from the heightened commercial focus include Space Exploration Technologies Corp. and Orbital Sciences Corp., both already working on cargo-delivery systems for NASA. Proponents of the new approach are betting that more competition will emerge as companies see more focus on outsourcing certain missions.
Proponents of the commercial approach also say it would save the government money because companies would use their own funds to develop innovative new technologies and recoup their investments over a longer period by providing services. Such programs also are intended to be faster, more nimble and less bureaucratic than traditional NASA acquisition procedures.
With less than $10 billion annually earmarked for manned space exploration, commission members concluded NASA can’t afford to embark on sweeping new initiatives at the same time it is pursuing plans to return astronauts to the moon, most likely after 2025. One of the biggest decisions facing the White House is whether it is willing to shelve those moon ambitions, at least temporarily, even if that results in industry disruptions and job losses. That would entail ending development of an expensive new crew capsule, dubbed Orion, along with work on certain rocket and lunar-lander projects.
And of course, there is no mention of propellant depots or refueling. I’ll be curious to see what the final report has to say about them. Has there been no discussion of them, or do the reporters not understand their significance?
Also, Keith Cowing seems to have corroboration of Rocketman’s report that Bolden questions the value of the Ares-1X “mission.” And Keith displays the sunk-cost fallacy:
Given that the hardware is in place, and the money has more or less been spent, it would seem to be a total waste to not finish things up and then fly the mission.
What is the value of flying a test of a system that isn’t particularly relevant to the actual hardware when the program itself is going to be cancelled? The money has been spent, and it’s dollars over the dam, but there is still some risk involved in the flight, and I haven’t heard that the Range-Safety Office at the Cape has given the go-ahead yet. Yes, it is a waste of money, but it was always a waste of money. Let’s finally stop wasting the money.
That was rhetorical, right?
“There’s no mention of robotics, but it would be nice to see some ISRU demos on the lunar surface. If successful, they would provide a lot of leverage for lunar landings. This might be a good prize program — land something on the surface that can generate TBD lbs/hour of LOX (and possibly LH2 as well).”
A great idea. Only problem is, if we’re not going back to the Moon any time soon, why bother?
A great idea. Only problem is, if we’re not going back to the Moon any time soon, why bother?
Nothing wrong with robotic precursors, you don’t have to do manned landings or build a whole base straight away.
“Given that the hardware is in place, and the money has more or less been spent, it would seem to be a total waste to not finish things up and then fly the mission.”
We have a phrase for that: ‘Cutting your losses.’
(As opposed to the way the last three Apollo Lunar missions were de-funded, with existing hardware we *knew* to work.)
And Curt’s right. The Refueling Depot concept is all over ‘space’ circles, but I’ve seen only one or two references (as part of Augustine-related stories) in mainstream media.
Only problem is, if we’re not going back to the Moon any time soon, why bother?
To make it possible to go back to the moon soon, and affordably.
A great idea. Only problem is, if we’re not going back to the Moon any time soon, why bother?
Nobody is saying we aren’t going back to the moon soon. This is only saying that NASA’s not going back to the moon. “we” no longer means NASA only.
As for the Ares 1X, NASA could always put out a purchase order for data on its performance in flight. If ATK is confident that it’s a good system, as they’ve been saying for years, surely they could put up the money to fly it, and reimburse themselves from the data purchase. We could even throw the launch and range fees in as government-furnished services.
Clark Lindsey’s post has generated an active thread at nasaspaceflight dot com
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18441.0
Wow, if the administration has the guts to kill STS in 2011 and cut all STS derived options then count me impressed. There will be a thunderous roar from 10,000+ employees who will lose their jobs, but the result will be NASA having no other option than purchasing commercial access to NEO.
There’s an interesting comment on the NASAWatch thread about using Ares I-X to validate past models of a blown single SRB if disaster were to strike at max-Q. It begs the question though; since the RSO triggered the SRBs for Challenger, would the data be significantly different for that experience compared to using Ares I-X as a “destructive test”?
At this stage, does canceling Ares I-x actually save any money at all? Looks like it might cost more man-hours to roll it back, destack it and haul it away than to launch it.
Mike Thompson Says:
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Wow, if the administration has the guts to kill STS in 2011 and cut all STS derived options then count me impressed. There will be a thunderous roar from 10,000+ employees who will lose their jobs, but the result will be NASA having no other option than purchasing commercial access to NEO.
—————————————————————————
We had an employee not performing a while back. Someone mentioned that he had a family and bills. My partner remarked, “So does the guy that wants to replace him.”
I have a hard time believing they’ll really kill Shuttle before someone else has regular access to LEO. In particular, to do it the year before an election. That’s gotta be a variable in the Administration’s calculus…
Nobody is saying we aren’t going back to the moon soon. This is only saying that NASA’s not going back to the moon. “we” no longer means NASA only.
It does to Mark. He has no more chance of understanding commercial spaceflight than a collie has of understanding how the dog food gets into the can. 🙂
Wow, if the administration has the guts to kill STS in 2011 and cut all STS derived options then count me impressed. There will be a thunderous roar from 10,000+ employees who will lose their jobs, but the result will be NASA having no other option than purchasing commercial access to NEO.
Millions of Americans have lost their jobs. 10,000 would not be a thunderous roar, even in Florida (a state with a population of 18 million).
It would take a little bit of political courage, but not nearly as much as people state.
But I don’t see anything in the article that says (or even implies) the Administration will kill the Shuttle in 2011. Where are you reading that?
But I don’t see anything in the article that says (or even implies) the Administration will kill the Shuttle in 2011. Where are you reading that?
Oops, I was reading that on the NasaSpaceFlight.com forum linked above by Bill White. The consensus there seems to be that the White House will stay with the current scheduled retirement of the shuttle fleet with no in-house NASA launch program to replace it. The NBC report above and this WSJ article also talk about the job losses.
10,000 would not be a thunderous roar, even in Florida (a state with a population of 18 million).
With those 10,000 jobs come lots of federal money to Florida that supports the economy in many communities. Last year in Titusville candidate Obama as much as promised “those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the space shuttle is retired because we cannot afford to lose their expertise.”
Putting those voters on the street in the run up to 2012 in an important swing state is a pretty gutsy move. I support the bold move towards commercial NEO launch services and feel this is a gutsy move by the Administration. We shall see if the Administration will actually follow through or if this is just a trial balloon. Congress, the actual keeper of the purse strings, may also not be in such a gutsy mood.
Memory tells me Richard Nixon laid off a whole batch of NASA people in 1970-1972. Richard Nixon was reelected president.
Quite a lot of NASA people were laid off during the first part of Bill Clinton’s first term. Bill Clinton was reelected president.
I don’t think the notion “I have to keep employment up at NASA to get reelected” is going to spend much time in Obams’s mind.
Besides, about a 1/4 – 1/3 of the country consists of people who think NASA spends 2-300 billion dollars a year on things
sensible people wouldn’t do. They are NOT going to break down in tears at the thought of NASA employees being laid off.
And beside that, there are going to be substantial layoffs thoughout the aerospace industry in the next couple years as the US military retreats from the middle east and as military procurement contracts are cut back or eliminated. NASA layoffs are going to seem as significant as icing on the cake — hell, as signiificant as the litttle decorations on the icing. Senators Nelson and Shelby can strut about their states making speeches about preserving aerospace jobs, but it isn’t going to alter reality.
You need to get away from alt.space-oriented blogs and pay attention to websites where people yammer about economic and foreign policy. Not that you’ll find it particularly educational, but you’ll at least catch on to how totally insignificant space issues are 99.99% of the folk on the internet. And you’ll maybe understand that regardless of our careful reasoning and analysis here, Obama has a completely free hand to do any damned thing he wants with the US space program, because it doean’t matter to anyone but us.
-ms
“Memory tells me Richard Nixon laid off a whole batch of NASA people in 1970-1972. Richard Nixon was reelected president.
Quite a lot of NASA people were laid off during the first part of Bill Clinton’s first term. Bill Clinton was reelected president.
I don’t think the notion “I have to keep employment up at NASA to get reelected” is going to spend much time in Obams’s mind.”
Different people and different times. You cannot project that onto future events.
Looks like Obama better hang onto every vote he can:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
“I have a hard time believing they’ll really kill Shuttle before someone else has regular access to LEO. In particular, to do it the year before an election. That’s gotta be a variable in the Administration’s calculus…”
That assumes that a signifigant part of the electorate (not including those who would be directly affected) values continuous manned access to LEO.
Would that they did…
A question, that I hope someone might be able to answer – does anyone have a rough idea about the difference in cost between not flying and flying? I know not flying can’t be zero, because you have contractual issues, and disposal issues, and so on. But I am wondering how close those 2 values are?
I’ve no idea. Someone at HQ is probably doing that analysis as we speak, though, based on the existing contracts.
With those 10,000 jobs come lots of federal money to Florida that supports the economy in many communities.
NASA’s own economic impact study showed that Shuttle spending only accounts for about 3% of all jobs in central Florida.
Looks like Obama better hang onto every vote he can:
No one’s talking about cutting the NASA budget. A billion dollars of NASA spending will generate about the same number of jobs regardless of where the money’s spent. The fact that the spending might not occur in Florida is a concern for Nelson but not necessarily for Obama.
does anyone have a rough idea about the difference in cost between not flying and flying? I know not flying can’t be zero, because you have contractual issues, and disposal issues, and so on.
I’ve heard a figure of $40 million to retire each Shuttle orbiter, mostly due to toxic propellent issues.
Ed,
I was specifically referring to the rumor that Bolden is considering not flying Ares I-X, rather than shuttle retirement. Im curious as to the price point of not flying Ares I-X vs flying it.
You also have to factor in the expected value of the risk if both the launch and the range-safety system fail. The Air Force RSO at CCAFS has yet to give NASA permission to fly…
Rand,
Absolutely – other things worth consider – is there viable scientific/engineering data you can get, even though we aren’t using the system (model validation, or something like that. And PR risk/value –
but the actual money involved is something that will have clear numbers associated with it, that are harder to dispute.
If I can find the time, I should sit down and write a piece on the pros/cons of launching. But I think that Frank Sietzen is right over at NASA Watch. If the program is going to be cancelled, there is no political up side for NASA and the White House in going forward with the test. And that will count for a lot more than arcane budget issues, as we’ve seen…
Just handwaving, but assume that test, between now and the end of the year, occupies 10 thousand people for say two months each, at an average salary-plus-benefit cost of 100 thousand per year … That’s about 160 million dollars, for everything like shooing birds away to analysing the flight data. Ballpark figure.
You’d get a bunch of data, of course, but I suspect it would mostly serve to validate wind tunnel test data and pre-flight analyses (or not validate, of course, which is always of interest). But it’s for what now seems a dead bird — there aren’t going to be Ares rockets to follow it, so the analyses and wind tunnel tests will have to start all over again for the next launcher someone wants to build. You’d be better off instrumenting one of Elon Musk’s Falcon 9’s and comparing its flight results with predictions — that’d at least be of some use to Falcon people.
The real risk with flying the Ares test vehicle (10% chance? 75% chance?) is that it might fail in flight quickly, creating at the very least a public relations embarassment. There doesn’t seem to be much of an upside in flying that mission, from my view point, and lots of potential downside. So …