In light of the recent GAO report, Keith Cowing is being pretty hard on ESAS himself:

The CEV/CLV is already a debacle of epic proportions with the contractor teams saddled with requirements that change on a daily basis (as the GAO report infers [I think he means "implies"--rs]), a launch vehicle with severe technical deficiencies, and 8A small business set asides that guarantee that minimally competent companies with little experience in this realm are placed in the critical path of the program. The sense of doom is so bad that many of the top engineers at the primes refuse to work on the CEV, preferring to remain with the more stable military programs. Everyone is expecting a repeat of 1992/93 when the Space Exploration Initiative collapsed under the weight of unrealistic schedules, reduced budgets, and a new president from a different party who cared little for the return to the Moon effort.

I have to say that, from the inside of one of the contractor teams, I'm not seeing those kinds of things, at least to that degree, but I don't necessarily have that much visibility. For example, I don't know of any "top engineers" who have refused to work the program, but then, I don't know that many "top engineers." And we haven't had a formal requirements change since January (at least until this week, when a new Systems Requirements Document came out), though there have been many questions about potential trades that need to be performed, from which one can infer requirements changes coming down the pike in the future (probably upon award in late August or early September).

[Update at 10:30 AM PDT]

As Keith notes in comments, I misread that. It's a reader's comment, not his. I was mislead because I didn't read carefully, and there was only one.

"Keith Cowing is being pretty hard on ESAS himself:"

Huh? "himself?" That is a reader's comment, Rand, not mine. Do you see "editor's note" or "by Keith Cowing" attached to it? No - it says "your comments thus far".

You are getting sloppy, Rand.

I didn't make the comment either, but I agree with this portion:

"a launch vehicle with severe technical deficiencies, and 8A small business set asides that guarantee that minimally competent companies with little experience in this realm are placed in the critical path of the program."

Not necessarily minimally competent, as some SDB's are run by very competent people and personnel, but they still are in a risky situation. They also have reduced benefits that make it difficult for them to hire engineers.

As for CLV, does issues have been discussed previously. Changes to the vehicle have already generated weight concerns that effect CEV.

With events going on, as they are, in the Middle East, if I had a job on a defense program, it would be hard for me to want to jump from that position to CEV.

I may be wrong, but I would guess that Keith Cowing is a Democrat. I doubt the Democrats have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the Whitehouse next time around, even though they think they do. They are wrong. The old Democrat party of Scoop Jackson and JFK is gone. The Communists and the Socialists have taken over that party. They will never get the Whitehouse again.

If the "Vision" is doomed, it is because it is philosphically flawed from the get go. If the program is not set up to begin paying for itself, it really is literally doomed at some point anyway.

1) Yes, KC is a Democrat.

2) That's not his comment, it was sent to him. He keps his politics close to his vest. Trying to paint his as a rabid partisan is not a fair criticism.

Here we go again. I correct Rand on a error in his post attributing someone else's comments to me - and he prmopty corrects that - yet the fact that I am a democrat is a relevant issue with someone else. Mentioning communists and socialists is relevant too, I suppose.

You are just being goofy Tony.

I don't care for NASA Watch much any more (I think Keith goes to extremes to nit pick NASA and Griffin to death) but I will give him credit for not letting his political beliefs keep him from riding Kerry hard on space issues in 2004.

While I understand the problems with changing requirements, I'm still happy to see them.

From time to time someone in the alt.space crowd will invoke the memory of the British R100 (built by private industry) and R101 (built by a government agency) airships to describe what they see wrong with NASA and the Shuttle program.

Rand and others note a main reason for R100's success and the R101's failure: The R100 builders changed their minds on major design details whenever it seemed justified. The R101 had to contend both not just with bureaucracy, but with publicists who were trumpeting new "innovations". Once these "innovations" and the money already spent on develop them was made public, it was hard to abandon them.

If there's one thing notable about the VSE designs, it's that they keep changing. As with the R100, the original (and next) engine plans have been dropped. The launchers are looking a lot less shuttle-derived than they used to. The CEV has evolved, and the lunar lander too. The designers are clearly following the R100 path.

I assume the alt.space crowd is giving them credit for this. (But then I'm Canadian, which around here may be worse than being a Democrat.)

Observations of one of the CEV Prime contractors:

The CEV proposal has been staff primarily by engineers that have worked past NASA programs. It’s true that there are few engineers from military programs mostly because an established engineer on a military program isn’t going to leave to work on a proposal that has only a 50% chance of succeeding, and at least in my estimation less of a chance of being continued for more than a year or 2. The minimally competent SDBs is right on. The comment most often heard from the poor engineer that has to deal with one is; “we just write that work off, if I get anything useful it’s a bonus.”

The people that are working the program are competent enough but recognize that’s there’s nothing to go back to if they lose. Most are counting on CEV to be their ticket to that big promotion. A loss will mean a trip to the unemployment office for some.

I wouldn’t work on the CEV program because NASA is a rotten customer. They keep any interesting work for themselves (engineering and building anything that can’t be purchased from a McMaster Carr catalog) and use the prime to tighten bolts and pound rivets. The reason NASA is like that is because they’re staffed by a bunch of Ph.Ds that weren’t smart enough to get faculty positions but still want money to do cool research on the public dime, which partially explains why everything they do costs more than it should. DOD is a much better customer; they’re well funded, and let the contractor work. Can you imagine the Air Force saying build us a bunch of F-22s, but we want to make the wheels and the radar, and do the testing on the canopy?

Signed,
Ph.D. that wasn’t smart enough to get a faculty position but still wants money to do cool research on the public dime.

"You are getting sloppy, Rand."

A polite e-mail correcting the mistake would have accomplished the same thing.

Tom, that isn't in Keiths nature.

"The minimally competent SDBs is right on. The comment most often heard from the poor engineer that has to deal with one is; “we just write that work off, if I get anything useful it’s a bonus.”"

The SDBs I work with have been good engineers, doing quality work. You just have to know how to structure the work to play to their strengths.

And as Rand has pointed out, the major requirements for CEV have remained constant for quite a while, though that will change in the next few weeks as NASA goes over the SRD again.

On CLV, I have no special insight.

"Tom, that isn't in Keiths nature."

I guess so. He reminds me of the guys in Hyde's Park who stand on top of a bucket and rail against the Queen. Except he seems to have a personal vendetta against the NASA administrator and their Public Affairs Office.

It's kinda quaint, but I doubt you'd want to invite him to dinner.

I'm such an awful person - yet you guys seem to keep reading my site..... curious....

"I'm such an awful person - yet you guys seem to keep reading my site..... curious...."

I've never seen it before. I was just noting that you're apparently a jerk. That doesn't seem to be necessary, and in fact, is probably counterproductive.

Gee Tom, you say "I've never seen it before." Yet you make pronouncements about what I write on NASA Watch.

Question: how is it that you know what I write if you do not read it?

Just curious.

Keith, I think his "pronouncement" was about what you wrote in this comment section...

You know the old saying--you only get one chance to make a first impression. He wondered why you didn't correct me in email. I do, too (not that I care that much).

Since you have admitted to the mistake why not just take the incorrect statement off your page? Your error is the first thing people see and they may well just click on the link right below without ever scrolling all the way down to see your correction, assuming that this is indeed a statement I made.

Keith Cowing has so much free time and so little to live for he spends his time reading what other people write about him. Can't wait to see what response he gives to this post.

I briefly looked at this NASAWatch site. I see that Mr. Cowing is whinging about being denied a press pass by an organization that he has apparently criticized multiple times in the past (I do see that it is possible to register for the conference for $270, however). I also see that he uses this as a reason to take another shot at NASA even though the Mars Society is privately run. And I see that he ends with an ironic note about "thin-skinned people." So now I also understand what Mr. Trotter means about his nature--it is apparently unpleasant.

Ceith Kowing is not thin-skinned!