The Senate hearings have begun. The first and last man on the moon will be testifying. While they’re certainly admirable men, I’m not sure what they have to contribute to this discussion. They know nothing about affordable or sustainable programs. They are in fact experts on those with the opposite characteristics. Here’s the webcast, and Alan Boyle is tweeting it.
[Update mid afternoon]
Sigh…
Cernan says it “might take as much as a full decade and would take 2-3 times as much” money as budgeted to launch new commercial spaceships.
When did Gene Cernan become a cost estimating expert? And this, from Cowing’s feed:
Cernan: had telecon last week; Bolden said comm space may need bailout like GM/Chrysler – may be largest bailout in history.
Bigger than TARP? Bigger than GM/Chrysler? Bigger than the thirty-five billion dollars that Ares I was projected to cost, if all went well? When SpaceX has spent less than a billion to date, and they’re most of the way there?
Words fail.
And of course, who can gainsay them? They walked on the moon.
[Update a couple minutes later]
I don’t know whether to be angry, or sad about this. Gene Cernan is up there spouting utter nonsense to senators. Did someone else give him these bizarre talking points, or is he just making it up? Either way, it tarnishes him badly.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Is someone going to ask Bolden to confirm this, or is he no longer a witness?
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s another gem of innumeracy from Captain Cernan:
Cernan: Let’s put a box on the 1040 for taxpayers to give an extra penny to NASA. I bet we’d get enough $ to do all we wanted.
Let’s be generous and assume that there are a hundred and fifty million US taxpayers. By my accounting, that would give us a whopping $1.5M a year.
It’s like he’s just talking without thinking, and making this stuff up on the fly.
[Update a few minutes later]
I have more thoughts on “bail outs” here.
[Update late afternoon]
Clark has some brief thoughts, and links:
From Sen. Hutchison capturing cosmic rays for energy production to Sen. Rockefeller transporting Sir Isaac Newton to 1880s Baltimore, it was a typical Congressional hearing on a technical topic.
The country’s in the very best of hands.
[Update a few minutes later]
It was nice to see Senator Brownback saying sensible things. I just got an email from the Commercial Spaceflight Federation with a quote:
I am a strong supporter of NASA, as I mentioned, and of the commercial space industry … With the impending retirement of the Shuttle, NASA is now assuming a much different role than in our past space effort, and I think there is great opportunity to have a space program that leads the world but will be a space program that is firmly embedded in opportunity for all. By opening up commercial space, it ensures a strong future for the US and the competitive aerospace industry.
I think it helped that Pete Worden was on his staff for a while a few years ago.
[Evening update]
Alan Boyle has a story on the hearings today, and Clark Lindsey has expanded on his initial thoughts.
Armstrong went to orbit atop a Titan 2, but he’s worried that a orbital taxi built by Lockheed or Boeing won’t be safe enough…..
The Senators are cravenly using the Apollo guys just as they would anyone else to try to get votes rather than progress.
As Clark pointed out earlier today, Sally Ride should up there to post the utterly clear case that Constellation is a raving zombie. Bolden, Holdren, don’t speak forcefully enough and can’t compete with the ‘star power’ of the Apollo contingent.
http://twitter.com/b0yle/status/13869947922
RT @mlaine: Bolden: “We have 90 successful missions on Soyuz. I feel much more comfortable with them than with commercial ‘up-starts.'”
Did Bolden actually say that?
NASA Watch reports that Cernan said Bolden said:
The words are Bolden’s not Cernan’s.
I wonder if Bolden really said that? If so, then he’s in cloud cuckooland. And it’s not a very effective strategy to sell commercial crew. Is he trying to undermine the new policy himself?
I am watching the hearing and it is pathetic. These congress people are completely incompetent technically, they are pushing only their hidden agenda serving their job programs and dinosaur corporations that lobby and donate money to them. It is disheartening, especially so that probably this is what is going on in all other senate committees.
I can’t speak as much to Cernan’s credentials, but I can say this about Armstrong. In addition to being a test pilot and an astronaut he was a real honest to gosh engineer. He taught for many years at the University of Cincinnati. When he was a spokesman for Chrysler he insisted that were he involved he be involved at the engineering end as well and as such he worked hand in hand with Lee Iacocca to bring about the Chrysler turn around so he has had a direct hands on experience in design and business production. This is not a man who goes off half cocked. If he makes a statement on a matter like this you can rest assured he’s done his homework. It is unquestionably true he knows more about the matter than anyone in congress or the White House.
Well here we go again. The last thing politicians want is to be confused with FACTS. Sally Ride should be a witness. Armstrong and Cernan are yesterday’s news. Not to detract from what they did but they’ve done little for space since.
I agree with Miklos and I wonder what is being under-reported from other committees that can do so much more damage to the nation. What is it that “they” don’t want us looking at?
At NSF, comments suggest Senator Hutchison proposed harnessing cosmic rays as an energy source.
In any event, maybe this hearing can help demonstrate why relying on Uncle Sugar for funding isn’t a wise course of action.
Bill,
[[[In any event, maybe this hearing can help demonstrate why relying on Uncle Sugar for funding isn’t a wise course of action.]]]
Nope, its not as the New Space industry is about to learn, the hard way.
Rand, re your remark, “It’s like he’s just talking without thinking, and making this stuff up on the fly”
It’s not just _like_ this is what he did, it IS what he did.
best tweet of the day was: @SpaceSherpa Senator Hutchison: We came in peace for all mankind, enabling us to blow up our enemies without collateral damage.
That’s gold.
I wish Bolden could state a clear message. It’s a very simple one:
1. Constellation is unaffordable
2. We’ve got four potential options for replacements
3. Two are proven rockets built by a company with 50 years of experience.
What I’m giving you instead of one unaffordable rocket is a choice of four. We choose one from Column A (ULA), one from Column B (startup), and you’ve got multiple, redundant access to orbit. It’s a capability that no one else on the planet would have. And your risks are balanced out.
Elon Musk and Gwynne Shotwell have been saying this clearly. I’m not sure why NASA doesn’t explain it.
I don’t know what General Bolden’s strong suits are, but communications are not one of them.
Rand, in regards to the extra penny, maybe means an extra penny on the dollar. Being that he claims NASA now gets half a penny on the dollar I’m guessing the magic tickbox would triple NASA’s budget.
Which, ya know, is a nice fantasy, but I expect NASA’s culture would just piss away $54B as easily as $18B.
The problem is that Congress asks specific questions, and Bolden actually answers them. They get lost in details, and he can’t pull out far enough to explain the bigger picture.
What is that old axiom? Answer the questions you want to answer, not the ones they ask. I’m not saying to lie or obfuscate, just focus everyone on the larger policy.
Maybe there’s some issues involved. First, ULA has committed to competing for the contract. And NASA can’t be designating what options it might be leaning toward. And then there’s the affordability of ULA’s options. All these questions would be raised, but there are answers to them.
They should have had someone from the committee to lead Bolden through the possible scenarios. Get Sen. Nelson to ask, “What are our possibilities? We’ve got two COTS rockets and ULA’s offerings? How do you see that playing out?”
Bolden then lays out those options and goes through pros and cons and maybes. If Congress has safety concerns, then a ULA rocket is the place to begin. It could cost more, but if safety is paramount, then there won’t be a problem funding it, right? We bring along the startups as they’re ready to go.
Bolden in the earlier session, and was asked about the “bailout” conversation – he said he didn’t remember saying that “it could be a bigger bailout than Chrysler” (or to that effect).
I think he is a little too honest in his answers, but maybe also needs a little better understanding of how his answers are perceived. It’s so easy being a back-seat NASA Administrator… 😉
I was glad to see Norm Augustine fielding a lot of the questions in his session instead of Cernan or Armstrong, but my NASA cable feed froze part way through, so I didn’t see the rest of the testimony. Norm was pretty clear about Constellation not be supportable from a funding standpoint – something like “you could build it, but there wouldn’t be enough money to do other exploration at the same time”.
I,,, I,,, I don’t know what to say. I keep thinking I will no longer be surprised at the ignorance or outright lies and distortions. I’m always wrong.
Coastal, the archive of the webcast is up. http://bit.ly/cdr768
You didn’t miss much. Armstrong just demonstrated that he has no idea why going back to the surface of the Moon before going to Lagrangian points, asteroids and Mars orbit makes no sense. Never mind that they guy who could explain it was sitting next to him.. and already explained it (poorly) just minutes before.
Dave, which ones in particular? Just from Sen Hutchison we have:
Extending the shuttle will close the gap and ensure astronaut safety.
NASA invented MRI.
Human spaceflight gave us guided missiles and that makes the world a better place.
NASA is doing research on the ISS to harness cosmic rays as a power source.
I mean, how can you argue with any of that 🙂
Harnessing cosmic rays as a power source? LOL!
We’re governed by morons. The problem is, is that the morons are also present in positions of power in the permanent bureaucracy.
I have the impression from some loonger quotations that what Bolden actually said to Armstrong and Cernan was that commercial space launches might not be (would not be?) profitable and money-saving as currently hoped, that NASA would end up paying sufficiently for launches to make those ventures profitable, and that over some period of time (10 years? 20 years?) this subsidy would cost as much as a major corporate bailout. Probably not in those words, of course, and probably without any hard numbers.
I.e., Bolden thought he was making the point that the US was committed to commercial launch, even if it didn’t pan out as well as hoped. Cernan’s take on this was “WOW!”
If it was a teleconf then it was probably recorded.. they should release the tape.
Both Cernan and Armstrong are patriots and concerned Americans. Both are expressing apprehension towards Obama’s proposed Flex program that guts our existing manned space program, puts thousands out of work, delivers economic hardship to space related communities, lacks focus, lacks synergy, based on vague ambiguous 20 plus year goals , avoids g-wells, ignores existence and exploitation ISRU or lunar ice, lunar resources, based on cost reduction yet continues a 20 year money pit over budget ISS endlessly, replaces runway landing technology with 60 era splash down capsule technology, promises nothing beyond LEO splash down capsule ISS service for the next 20 years, funnels billions of NASA funding into progressive academic colleges to encourage ROI of Obama’s 2012 campaign chest, retires the shuttle and existing manned space program based on promise of untested, unproven, commercial company SpaceX abilities to step up to the plate.
I tip my hat to both of them true American patriots that place county and the future of America’s manned space program ahead of personnel economic gain and political ambition. Both of these astronauts the first and last moon walkers are well versed in aviation and aerospace history. I can think of no one better to ask than them. They are the real deal been there done it, moon walkers, products of the greatest space program in history of man.
I find Cernan suggestions of adding a NASA donation tax option far superior to Augustine’s give-it-up idea of gutting our existing manned space program and altering the focus from lunar resource development to academic LEO white paper studies and vague, goalless look but don’t touch market stifling non-enabling plan.
When one attempts to degrade these men there ideals and there opinions one had better take good long look in the mirror and ask who the hell am I to judge? Have I put my life on the line and sacrificed to achieve what they for the good of all of us. Have I walked on the moon, looked back upon the earth, do I share a perspective as profound as they?
I am and have been a supporter of commercial based space exploration for over thirty years. And I must say I am ashamed and applauded at some of the opinions put forth by fellow supporters in some of these self centered replies.
Doug, the representatives from the grammar academy are here. They demand that you stop abusing the adjectives or face penalty of death.
The question is, how is this playing to people who aren’t as into this as people on this blog are? You have the hero astronauts against an administration that has failed adequately communicate their plan. This looks like a PR mismatch of epic proportions.
Flex Path will save manned spaceflight the only way anyone knows how, by dumping billions a year for the next decade into the ISS. The commercial component is a red herring–SpaceX and her launchers didn’t magically appear after April 15.
You don’t like Constellation? Fine. But why that means we have to give up on the only mission that stands a chance of actually opening space up to real human settlement and development completely escapes me. And don’t think for a minute that Flexible Path is anything less than the complete abrogation of settlement of space in favor of the almost contradictory agendas of the Mars fanatics and the grumps in the unmanned exploration camp. Say what you want about Mike Griffin, but the guy actually got it: the goal isn’t to keep engineers and scientists employed, but to start the long, hard work of colonizing space.
Presley, whenever you feel like joining the adult conversation, all you’ve gotta do is stop talking about doing the “hard work of colonizing space” and start talking about what is possible within the current budget.
You don’t like Constellation? Fine. But why that means we have to give up on the only mission that stands a chance of actually opening space up to real human settlement and development completely escapes me.
And what mission would that be? Constellation is a pair of concrete gumboots on the space industry, as will be anything using NASA derived hardware – it is not even within an order of magnitude of being cost effective. And space settlement is waiting on space becoming cost effective – which is most definitely not NASA’s forte.
NASA only does human space at 10-100 times the price that is commercially possible and necessary to make space economically viable (it is a government monopoly come jobs program), whether that be launch vehicles, space stations, or designs commissioned according to their own perverse requirements/specifications. With every passing it year it is only getting worse and more disconnected from reality.
I suspect you are confusing technical capability with economic capability – any country can go to the moon if given enough money, but as history demonstrated, that has nothing to do with space settlement.
“” Chris L. Says:
May 12th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
The question is, how is this playing to people who aren’t as into this as people on this blog are? You have the hero astronauts against an administration that has failed adequately communicate their plan. This looks like a PR mismatch of epic proportions””
I skimmed comments on a couple of the stories and they followed the slant of the articles that Constellation was good and commercial is bad. I had this flashback to a line in a book, “four legs good, two legs bad, four legs good, two legs bad”.
It really seems disingenuous for Mr Armstrong and Mr Cernan to speak up now. Where were they 15, 20, 30 years ago? NASA’s manned-flight program has been stagnant for decades. And these rancid politicians, suddenly concerned about NASA (space-industry Representatives excepted) who nakedly make political hay out of this new direction. Where were these two astronauts when Bush created yet another unfunded mandate in Constellation? When Congress declined to increase the budget? Decades ago we should have had hundreds of people in space — but we don’t. It’s time to let Commercial space flight have a go, and perhaps I’ll be able to travel there before I die.
Jack,
15, 20, and 30 years ago, NASA was doing exactly what it did when Armstrong and Cernan were in the program, only with a lot less money. Which is to say, nothing sustainable. The new plan is a recognition of the realities of government funded space exploration (namely its limitations) and both these gentlemen (who have been out of the loop for 35 years) are not able to see that. To them, it looks like someone is canceling the grand and glorious future they helped create. They are of another age.
All I can add to these comments is that the White House and the know nothing Senate and Congress have underfunded NASA since Apollo 11.
The idea of a space shuttle was for it to build, service and transport personnel and cargo to/from a space station. The 1972 NASA budget funding only provided enough money for one of the two. NASA of course chose the shuttles, which for late 1960’s, to early 1970’s technology, are still the most advanced spacecraft/rocket launcher ever built by humankind. The space shuttle’s liquid main engines are the most efficient and reliable engines ever used.
On shuttle safety or lack thereof, I maintain that both the Challenger and Columbia accidents were no such thing. Both were avoidable and there were plenty of warning signs “crying out,” but NASA management and NASA engineering (and Thiokol management (the Solid Rocket Booster manufacturer)) were, in my opinion, criminally negligent in continuing to fly the shuttle, with the known problems of o-ring erosion (Challenger accident) and shedding of External Tank foam striking the orbiters’ TPS or thermal protection system (Columbia tragedy). Why did the Rogers Commission (Challenger Accident Investigation Panel) FAIL to find that TPS “hits” were a critical safety issue to the Shuttle is beyond me? These people were supposed to be the best of the best.
So, in my opinion, the shuttle’s are a lot safer than say, the Saturn/Apollo system, which had one unthinkable disaster, based on Mercury and Gemini flight successes (Apollo 1), and one near, also unpredictable catastrophe, (Apollo 13) over the course of 8 years (1967-1975; 16 Apollo human flights) versus almost 30 years (1981-2010/2011); 131 flights of the space shuttle, with two (avoidable) disasters, as I stated in the above paragraph.
I am in favor of space shuttle flight extension with at least two missions per year to support the ISS until there is some other means of the US accessing LEO (Low Earth Orbit) reliably, either by the private sector or by a NASA spacecraft, without total reliance on Russia, which in the next five to ten years, could become less of an ally due to unpredictable worldly events.
“”Fred Says:
May 13th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
All I can add to these comments is that the White House and the know nothing Senate and Congress have underfunded NASA since Apollo 11.””
Actually NASA was just more obviously overfunded until Apollo 11.
pushing only their hidden agenda
You ever wonder what the world would be like if all agenda’s were tattooed on their foreheads?
Presley, whenever you feel like joining the adult conversation, all you’ve gotta do is stop talking about doing the “hard work of colonizing space” and start talking about what is possible within the current budget.
Don’t you mean “what’s possible in the current budget while keeping a thoroughly useless space station in orbit at a cost of $15 billion through 2015, taking the burden for space-based climate science to the tune of $10.3 billion through 2015, another $5 billion in the same time frame for the cosmologists, $8 billion for the Mars folks, and almost $3 billion for the green planes and aeronautics IT?”
I’m not here to attack newspace, which will inevitably play a critical role in opening space up for development. I’m not here to defend Constellation, though we have no alternative architecture for the foreseeable future for LTI missions. I’m not here to imagine a wonderful world where NASA gets to waste all the money she wants. But please explain to me why manned spaceflight and its supporting infrastructure–commercial or otherwise–is barely a third of the FY2011 budget request?
“we have no alternative architecture for the foreseeable future for LTI missions”
None that you’re hearing about, anyhow. Picture one or several propellant depots in orbit, with supplies added by whomever can deliver the propellant to orbit – the Atlas and Delta rockets, each with lengthy safety records, can do this now. Picture orbital assembly (the one thing NASA has gotten good at in the last 12 years) and orbital fueling of a lunar transfer stage. Suddenly you don’t need heavy lift to get to the moon. You don’t even need new rockets, the ones we have now will work.
Of course, that doesn’t need to have NASA in charge of it. Doesn’t need NASA at all, in fact.
“please explain to me why manned spaceflight and its supporting infrastructure–commercial or otherwise–is barely a third of the FY2011 budget request”
Let’s see, two billion a year for climate science (something that should be NOAA instead of NASA), a billion a year for cosmologists, several billion a year for eternity developing Ares, a few billion a year diverted to keep the shuttles going one or two flights a year… pretty soon you’re talking real money. When NASA is busy eating its seed corn, perhaps we shouldn’t be cheering for it to eat more.
All I can add to these comments is that the White House and the know nothing Senate and Congress have underfunded NASA since Apollo 11.
NASA has always been severely over funded to the extent of avoiding fiscal accountability. For the greater good of the space industry, the plug needed to be pulled on NASA many decades ago. One can not develop low cost access to space by spending lots of money…
This quote from Clark Lindsey’s piece pretty much sums it up:
It’s obvious that the Senators don’t understand that with Ares I/Orion the cost scale is in the $35B-$50B range, while with the commercial crew it is in the $1B-$2B range for each of two to three systems.
Jeff Greason recently said something along the lines of unless one is on a track to ~$100/lb, one is not on the right track. NASA is not on the right track, never has been, never will be. Constellation has something to do with many things, but it has nothing to do with space settlement, suggesting that is does is disingenuous.
Presley, the ISS has to stay up because it’s the one thing in the HSF program that actually serves a national need. The “soft power” that the ISS gives the White House is actually worth the money they sink into it. If the Bush administration had bothered to oversee Griffin at all the plan to splash it in 2015 never would have been approved.
Similarly, the aeronautics research, robotic exploration program, and cosmology program serve the national need. HSF beyond LEO is supposed to serve inspirational needs but since 2004 the Moonies in charge of the program have been ignoring the public interest as much as the public has been ignoring them.
Yes, Trent. Let’s just assert that the ISS serves a purpose by appealing to unquantifiable “soft power.” Nevermind that ISS has no bearing on our relations with the vast majority of the world–including China, nevermind the Atlantic treaty predates it by half a century, nevermind the ISS isn’t buying us stronger sanctions against Iran, didn’t stop Russia from steam-rolling through Georgia, and is of no importance whatsoever in arms control treaty of the day.
What national need is served by spending billions taking pretty pictures of objects we might never visit in the lifetime of our species and ad nauseum validation of FLRW? What does it matter if NASA cedes leadership on the pursuit of alternative fuels to some other interested, possibly foreign organization? And exactly what inspirational need has NASA filled after decades of declining American competiveness in math nad science educational achievement?
At least Moonshot 2 has, at worst, hints at a plausible vision for that might see an actual return on investment–lightyears more than what’s offered by anything else NASA’s doing.
Ed, I can read a budget request as well as anyone. There’s nothing programmed period. I can imagine why, for twelve years we’ve launched all but five components of the ISS on the shuttle–at $1 billion at least a pop. We could cut that down by a fifth or more by using Russian launchers, but then again that’s the bone in the teeth that was driving Constellation in the first place.
We’re starting from scratch, waiting for Newspace to deliver suitable launchers in the 20 ton range that are price competitive with Proton or Soyuz. And we’re doing so without even a thought to a mission that might follow if, not when, those launchers arrive.
But please explain to me why manned spaceflight and its supporting infrastructure–commercial or otherwise–is barely a third of the FY2011 budget request?
Because NASA’s charter requires it to do a lot more than manned spaceflight. In fact, NASA’s charter doesn’t require it to do manned spaceflight at all.
We’re starting from scratch, waiting for Newspace to deliver suitable launchers in the 20 ton range that are price competitive with Proton or Soyuz. And we’re doing so without even a thought to a mission that might follow if, not when, those launchers arrive.
This statement is not congruent with reality.
Because NASA’s charter requires it to do a lot more than manned spaceflight. In fact, NASA’s charter doesn’t require it to do manned spaceflight at all.
NASA’s charter also doesn’t require it to do anything of any quantifiable, economic benefit.
Pete;
NASA has always been severely over funded to the extent of avoiding fiscal accountability. For the greater good of the space industry, the plug needed to be pulled on NASA many decades ago. One can not develop low cost access to space by spending lots of money…
WHAT ABOUT THE PENTAGON OVER SPENDING AND THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER IS WAY OVER BUDGET AND WAY BEHIND SCHEDULE WHILE THE FUTURE THREAT TO THE USA IS FROM TERRORISTS WHO WILL GET US NOT WITH JET FIGHTERS POR MISSILES, BUT BY SMUGGLING IN WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
GIVE SOME OF THE $800 BILLION PENTAGON BUDGET TO NASA!
WHAT ABOUT THE PENTAGON OVER SPENDING AND THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER IS WAY OVER BUDGET AND WAY BEHIND SCHEDULE WHILE THE FUTURE THREAT TO THE USA IS FROM TERRORISTS WHO WILL GET US NOT WITH JET FIGHTERS POR MISSILES, BUT BY SMUGGLING IN WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
GIVE SOME OF THE $800 BILLION PENTAGON BUDGET TO NASA!
You do realize how counter productive it is to throw good money after bad? Giving NASA (HSF) yet more money would only encourage the junky – NASA needs to hit rock bottom before it can reform its ways.
One billion spent in New Space buys more of a future than a hundred billion spent on NASA. Enough is enough already. Giving NASA some of the pentagon budget would only make matters worse – it would only serve to help develop an even less affordable and unsustainable launch vehicle.
Seems to me the fight between commercial and government’s a red herring anyway. Until credible, private founded and managed destinations appear, the point is moot.
Presley Cannady wrote:
Seems to me the fight between commercial and government’s a red herring anyway. Until credible, private founded and managed destinations appear, the point is moot.
You do realize that there are two prototypes of a privately funded and managed space station currently on orbit, don’t you? And that the funder and manager of said prototypes has publicly stated that he is waiting only for a private manned spacecraft able to carry his crew and customers to orbit before he launches the production version?
Mike
You do realize that there are two prototypes of a privately funded and managed space station currently on orbit, don’t you? And that the funder and manager of said prototypes has publicly stated that he is waiting only for a private manned spacecraft able to carry his crew and customers to orbit before he launches the production version?
Which tells me that Bigelow has $500 million to burn, and nothing about his still pre-natal industry’s survivability compared to say hospitality.
The private sector is not NASA; that’s one of three core reasons we’re looking at it in the first place. If Bigelow can’t find on a return on his investment, then those destinations might as well not be there. Which brings us back to my original point. Until there are other destinations, this whole exercise is a moot point. In fact, we need a lot more destinations to wind down the costs of launching and then throwing away the equivalent of a oil tanker at a delivery rate an order of magnitude less frequent (1 month) Hyundai can slip a thoroughly reusable ship (4 days).