…and videotape. The HEFT team should be disbanded, and the soil sown with salt. It’s worse than useless.
[Update a minute or two later]
Senate to NASA: “Stick to the script.”
Update a while later]
In commenting on Paul’s post, Keith Cowing expands on my comment the other day, and gets more specific than I was willing to, but this kind of info is available from multiple NASA sources, on background:
During its recent deliberations the HEFT II activity look at a variety of scenarios, reference missions etc. One of them, DM1, actually meets the costs and schedule specified by Congress. DM1 entails creation and use of an in-space propellant depot and refueling capability. It also makes use of EELVs and other commercial launch assets. But forces within NASA ESMD personnel – led by Doug Cooke – have purposefully sat on such ideas and have made certain that they were scrubbed from presentation charts and reports to Congress and other “stakeholders”. Charlie Bolden is aware of this tactic.
…How does this make the White House look when they approved a report that NASA presented to the Hill last week – one that Congress has said it finds to lacking in its ability to meet Congresional intent – intent signed into law? This tactic of misinformation and subterfuge was done with the blessing of its Administrator.
So why does Charlie Bolden still have his job? He’s sabotaging the White House. Dick Truly was fired for something similar. It’s up to the White House to decide whether it wants its policy executed or not. Unfortunately, space is unimportant, in this administration or any other.
He’s sabotaging the White House.
How so? Do we know what the White House thinks about this or if it even cares? Or do you have information we don’t?
I’m assuming that, at least in theory, the White House (and OMB) continue to want to get as much of their plans for 2011 implemented as possible in the face of Congressional resistance. This is undermining that. Now they may not want that enough to do anything about it, but it’s hard to see how they would want this, which is just a partial continuation of/return to Constellation.
I thought the theory was they’re trying to get SDLV killed by telling Congress how expensive it really is, especially if you pick the most expensive option.
I’ve revised that theory, based on new data. Cooke and Bolden seem to be indulging in fantasies.
And nothing about Shannon’s side-mount study.
I figured it was going to get ugly when it looked like NASA was calling Congress’ bluff, but I was ready to go through whatever additional pain we would experience because it was the right thing to do.
If these new allegations are true, this does not bode well for the agency. From day one in the intel world, they drummed into us the phrase “Do not lie to Congress.” Do not lie by commission. Do not lie by omission. Do not lie to Congress.
The Church Commission so over-proscribed the business of intelligence because of the excesses of the Casey era, that it wasn’t until 9/11 that anyone was willing to revisit their impositions. I am not optimistic how things would look on the other side of a similar Congressional action against NASA.
If the suppressed HEFT scenario makes use of propellant depots and EELV’s, that also suppresses at least to a degree the Senators’ continue-shuttle-component-jobs program.
I won’t give Doug Cooke the time of day, but if NASA brought such a scenario up to the Hill wouldn’t Nelson et al just scream that they’re trying to resubmit the Administration’s original FY11 budget proposal? Which they clearly didn’t want on the Hill, for all the worst reasons.
Or am I missing something here?
I don’t see the problem here. The HEFT team might not have presented sidemount, but that is only 70-100 metric tons to orbit. Section 302.c.2 of the authorization act says: “The Space Launch System shall be designed from inception as a fully-integrated vehicle capable of carrying a total payload of 130 tons or more into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. The Space Launch System shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate capabilities for evolutionary growth to carry heavier payloads.” That 130 tons becomes the minimum. Sidemount doesn’t make the grade because 130 tons is 117 metric tons, at least 17 metric tons more than the sidemount design could loft.
Which are they going to be more willing to give up – 12/31/2016, 130t, or $11.5B?
Any takers?
G Clark paraphrased: “Fast, big, or cheap, pick two”
guys, HEFT is a different report to the HLV report. They’re supposed to be evaluating all the options.
That said, Keith is clutching for a story, as usual.
Justin Kugler said, “The Church Commission so over-proscribed the business of intelligence because of the excesses of the Casey era, that it wasn’t until 9/11 that anyone was willing to revisit their impositions. I am not optimistic how things would look on the other side of a similar Congressional action against NASA.”
Say what? The Church Committee was during the Ford administration and Casey ran the CIA during the Reagan administration! In fact Senator Church lost his reelection bid during the same year Ronald Reagan was first elected President and the Republicans gained a majority in the U.S. Senate.
@Justin:
It’s not as if NASA has only recently started lying. ESAS too was a sham. But this time they seem to be fairly honest that something very close to their old preferred option would not fit the budget numbers. Sure, they’ve omitted cheaper SDLV options, but if we’re going to go down that road we’ll have to conclude that they also omitted to mention it is an outrage for NASA to be in the launch business at all, and for there to be direct funding for a specific launch vehicle, let alone an HLV.
MPM, and don’t forget the direct funding for a specific capsule. They’re gunna have to start talking about Orion Exceptionalism to explain why Lockheed is getting such special treatment soon. Oh wait, they did that already didn’t they?
Direct funding for a spaceship wouldn’t necessarily be wrong, as long as it is a true spaceship that goes into space and stays in space, except perhaps for maintenance although that seems excessively ambitious for the near future. But Orion is not such a spaceship.
Mea culpa, Brad. I meant Colby, not Casey.
That said, Keith is clutching for a story, as usual.
NASA Watch has been pimping “side mount” (formerly called “Shuttle C”) HLVs for more than two years.
In May of 2008, we were told “the cost for developing the system was minimal, less than a billion dollars according to an external report and no more than $2 billion by NASA.”
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1286
A year later, he cost had escalated to $4 billion.
Should we believe the numbers they used back then, or the numbers they’re stating now?
The $7.6 billion supposedly covers “SSP extension, DDT&E, + 18 operational flights [between 2017 and 2027].”
Here’s the obvious gotcha. That averages only $447 million a year between now and 2017. Just maintaining the Shuttle infrastructure, without launching anything, would cost more than that.
So, there are obviously costs that Spudis, Cowing, and Marshall are leaving out.
Not to mention that Marshall has a track record of not being able to build Ares I ((and numerous previous launch systems) for what they said they could. Why would anyone believe that they can build side mount (or anything else) for what they say now?
The hope is that STS infrastructure gets torn down fast enough before any of these studies come to a final conclusion.
Only the Jupiter-130 Phase 1 followed by the Jupiter-24x Phase 2 adheres to the 2010 NASA Authorization Act.
SDHLV
Phase 1 70-100 tons
Phase 2 130 tons (with new upperstage)
Inline Configuration
Under $12 billion (even less if NASA uses a SpaceX like hands off approach)
Development time 6 years
reader Says:
January 16th, 2011 at 12:18 pm “The hope is that STS infrastructure gets torn down fast enough before any of these studies come to a final conclusion.”
Now there is a way to make a desision that shows confidence in the proposed alternatives.
“The $7.6 billion supposedly covers “SSP extension, DDT&E, + 18 operational flights [between 2017 and 2027].”
Here’s the obvious gotcha. That averages only $447 million a year between now and 2017. Just maintaining the Shuttle infrastructure, without launching anything, would cost more than that.”
The way that I read the chart at Air & Space and NASAWatch.com, the $7.6B covers DDT&E only. Those are the items in red there. Total cost for DDT&E, SSP extension, and 18 operational flights is in black – $28.6B. The figures for the inline configurations are correspondingly higher, with the HEFT price tag grossly over budget.
For purposes of fitting in the near-term budget, I think we could ignore the cost of the 18 flights, but the infrastructure maintenance costs need to be added to the $7.6B figure. Those costs are significant.
The following presentation
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sd-hlv-assessment-highlights-post-shuttle-solution/
describes a NASA study citing $2.7B for side mount block I, and $7.8B for side mount block II (includes block I costs). EDS is another $1B.
The following chart from NASAWatch.com
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2010/SDLV.charts.pdf
shows the sidemount cost as $11B (I believe this includes development and infrastructure maintenance). If it’s accurate, the sidemount fits the budget for the Congressional rocket. The schedule shows FY15. They give a figure of $15B for doing this plus keeping the shuttle going (“only” $4B more because of shared infrastructure). Their inline costs and schedule both miss the Congressional figures – $15B without Shuttle and $20B with it.
Both presentations give a path from sidemount to inline that I think could be used to meet the 130t long-term Congressional rule, although it sounds like a bad path to get there if that’s really where you’re going.
It looks like those presentations are saying the sidemount is the “least bad” Shuttle-derived option. Personally, if I had to go with Shuttle-derived, I’d stick with sidemount block I for a long time, maximizing funding for more productive areas (commercial crew, robotic precursors, tech demos for SEP/tugs/inflatables/depots/etc). Block I will give a small number of flights, but we could drag those out while Block II is worked. Maybe some precursors and tech demos could be launched on the sidemount, allowing us to use Shuttle-derived funding to concentrate the robotic precursor and tech demo funding on the actual payloads rather than launches.
The way that I read the chart at Air & Space and NASAWatch.com, the $7.6B covers DDT&E only.
In that case, Side Mount development costs have grown impressively since that “$1-2 billion” in May 2008.
Of course, the DIRECT kooks think their Jupiter would be immune to such increases, because the renderings look so cool.
One problem with side mount is that NASA has shut down production of external tanks.
That raises as interesting question. If NASA is going to restart production of external tanks, why not return the Shuttle orbiters to service as well?
That couldn’t possibly take any longer than developing side mount, and it would almost certainly be cheaper. It would be at least as good for saving jobs at KSC.
And the NASA HLR study showed that NASA could return astronauts to the Moon for ~$2 billion, using the Shuttle and existing ELVs. Surely NASA could squeeze that much money out of its budget, if it didn’t have to develop an HLV.
This is not the best plan in the world, but it would get NASA astronauts back to the Moon within 10 years without killing off another generation of commercial launch companies. Yet, the people who say that returning NASA astronauts to the Moon should be the primary goal of US space policy never suggest something like that. I wonder why?