POGO has filed a FOIA on NASA’s heavy-lift program.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s a story on the SLS by NPR. I found this comment by Bill Nelson interesting:
Congress recently told NASA to build that system by 2016, and to use existing industry contracts as much as possible. Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who flew on space shuttle Columbia, thinks building the big new rocket is what NASA needs to do, no matter where it’s going next.
“Maybe it’s going to be an asteroid, as the president suggested, for 2025,” Nelson says. “It’s possible we may go back to the moon. There may be other destinations. All of these are going to develop as we develop technology. But the first thing we have to have is a big rocket that can get all of these different components and refueling up into Earth orbit.”
So, my question is, Senator, if we’re going to be refueling in earth orbit, why do we need the big rocket? Fuel can go up on small rockets.
I sincerely hope POGO gets all the documents they request (whatever their motivations in seeking them).
The funny thing is when the Congress requests to see exactly the same documents there is a hue and cry about them interfering in NASA’s (meaning the Obama Administration’s) business.
Question: If POGO (whoever they are) actually get the documents, is it alright if they let the Congress see them?
🙂
The funny thing is when the Congress requests to see exactly the same documents there is a hue and cry about them interfering in NASA’s (meaning the Obama Administration’s) business.
Really? From whom?
Do you have a citation?
Nice try, but I am not going to do a document search for all the references on this site and others to “Congress Critters” “bloviating” for their “pork” and interfering with the work of the “experts”.
Why not simply answer the simple question: If POGO (whoever they are) actually get the documents, is it alright if they let the Congress see them?
If the answer is yes, we will have one of those rare moments of agreement.
Well, maybe just the big components, then, even though NASA seems to think Orion is the big component that will go to an asteroid, and it’s way too small for the SLS. They could add a booster stage to Orion/SLS, but before they fly it they’d need some Orion test flights, which will use up their stock of existing SSME’s. Perhaps NASA could use private space companies to tow the Orion to an asteroid and tow it back.
I can see some great benefits to having a giant booster (even far larger than the SLS), but not if it costs a fortune, sucks up the entire space budget, and only flies once in a blue moon.
Aside from fuel, it would make sense to use smaller rockets to launch sections of radiation shielding that can later be installed in whatever craft gets built, or even used on the ISS. Perhaps a small shielded living module, with some of the shielding slid onto the outside like a sleeve in a seperate launch, would be an ideal project.
Nice try, but I am not going to do a document search for all the references on this site and others to “Congress Critters” “bloviating” for their “pork” and interfering with the work of the “experts”.
Well, they were bloviating for their pork (and continue to do so), but I don’t recall anyone talking about them “interfering with the work of the ‘experts’.” I think you’re just making that up.
Why not simply answer the simple question: If POGO (whoever they are) actually get the documents, is it alright if they let the Congress see them?
It’s not only a simple question, it’s a silly and pointless one. Why wouldn’t it be?
Would it be all right with you if we FOIA the documents of the congressional staffers who came up with the Senate Launch System? I’m all for transparency in government at all levels. I can’t imagine why you would think otherwise.
@Joe: If POGO gets the documents on the development of the heavy lift vehicle, a bigger and more important question is whether they’ll let NASA see them. If NASA can get a hold of such documents they might be able to figure out what it is that they’re building.
Rand Simberg Says: July 20th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
“I think you’re just making that up.”
It’s still a free country (so far) everybody has the right to “think” anything they want.
“It’s not only a simple question, it’s a silly and pointless one. Why wouldn’t it be?”
That is apparently not what the Administration thinks, as they have tried so hard to not let Congress have official access (even though it is obvious they have unofficial access). I am going to assume this is as close as you will ever come to a simple – Yes – and move on.
“Would it be all right with you if we FOIA the documents of the congressional staffers who came up with the Senate Launch System?”
Yes, see its not that hard. But then I have confidence, at this point, that the information would parallel that received from the ‘Secret’ NASA documents (in fact most would probably be the same documents).
By the way I have no insider information on any of this, I am simply drawing inferences from what is available on the public record.
George Turner Says: July 20th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Hi George,
Cute joke. I admit that I have been treating this somewhat facetiously as well, but we are joking about a serious subject.
From what I can gather (again from public information only – No insider information) Congress believes NASA HQ is ‘modifying’ technical reports from the real experts at the field centers to slant decisions against a SD HLV. But the Congress (by whatever method) is aware of this. They are trying to get hold of the source technical studies (including costing) before NASA HQ (and presumably the OMB) ‘corrected’ them, so that it can all be made part of the public record.
This can become really nasty stuff if it is not resolved.
Ask yourself a simple question: If the above scenario is not accurate, why is the Administration trying so hard to keep the documents secret?
You’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
In 14 years, the hope is to visit an asteroid? If that’s their timeline, Rand need not worry about it. Commercial Space, even without government business to fly government employees to their outpost and stiffled with regulation, will progress fast enough to change public opinion. When people can choose between buying raffle tickets for a chance to fly to a LEO station or paying taxes to send government employees to look at a rock; they’ll pick up the phone and call their Congressman.
What the Space Shuttle program has proven is that Americans are well satiated with simple access to space. Really, the Apollo program proved it. If commercial space makes that happen in 7 years (just picking half of Sen. Nelson’s timeframe and providing plenty of margin); then they’ll reach the tipping point that will turn public opinion completely against NASA. NASA may still exist for reasons NPR still exists today.
There is no reason to think that anyone is trying to “keep anything secret.” The simplest answer is that it’s always a pain in the ass to gather up documents.
Tell me, just what “secrets” do you fantasize they’re trying to keep?
I would be enormously surprised if anyone could find any evidence of NASA overestimating the costs of building the Senate Launch System.
If Congress wants what they say they want, they should expect to pay through the nose.
Meeting an entirely arbitrary performance goal will not come without cost.
Also, when is the last time NASA underestimated the cost of doing anything?
Rand Simberg Says: July 20th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
“The simplest answer is that it’s always a pain in the ass to gather up documents.”
Yes that is the reason they started delivering some, but not all documents under threat of a subpoena. Then when pressed further for the ones they still withheld, insisted that the Senators themselves come to review them in a locked room. That was I’m sure, much less of a pain for all concerned.
“Tell me, just what “secrets” do you fantasize they’re trying to keep?”
I’m not really into fantasizing (that seems to be more your department). I already said the Congress believes the technical reports from the field centers were altered (as to cost) before presentation to Congress. That is the reason for wanting all the original documentation. If you still do not understand, I do not know how to say it in any simpler form.
Any further discourse on this subject is obviously without purpose, just keep repeating to yourselves – Move along nothing to see here – and maybe (who knows, the Presidential Office has a lot of power) everything will work out just like you want it to.
Since irony seems lost around here, that last paragraph was sarcasm. 🙂
@Joe, I’m sure NASA is increasing the cost numbers provided by the centers, because those cost numbers are probably still in the original 1970 or 1975 dollars. So headquarters has to adjust them for the inflation since then. On top of that they have to scan the original pencil on parchment blueprints of a Shuttle heavy lift derivative into CAD, or at least Adobe Acrobat.
I’m not really into fantasizing (that seems to be more your department).
Really? So now that you’ve attacked me, what is it that you fantasize that I’m fantasizing?
George Turner Says: July 20th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
George,
If you kidding, OK.
If you are not the numbers were produced by the HLV Technical teams assigned by Bolden (which he now appears to be undercutting because they brought him an answer his management did not want to hear) and are all in current dollars.
Rand Simberg Says: July 20th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
“So now that you’ve attacked me, what is it that you fantasize that I’m fantasizing?”
No you are fantasizing that I am fantasizing about what you are fantasizing.
Is there anything else you can do make this discourse more childish?
(Maybe you could try this: I’m rubber and your glue, anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you. Used to work for eight year olds.)
If you are not the numbers were produced by the HLV Technical teams assigned by Bolden (which he now appears to be undercutting because they brought him an answer his management did not want to hear)
You mean the same crack technical teams that successfully built X-33, 2GRLV, Ares I, and the last 50 Shuttle replacements?
Yes, Joe, anyone who doesn’t take their word at face value is obviously engaged in fantasy. And everything Hutchison and Nelson tell you must be true because politicians never lie.
Bizarro am smart.
Edward Wright Says: July 21st, 2011 at 5:12 am
“You mean the same crack technical teams that successfully built X-33, 2GRLV, Ares I, and the last 50 Shuttle replacements?”
Actually I mean the people who ran the Shuttle Program for thirty years and are very familiar with its hardware’s strengths/weaknesses/costs. The people you seem to be trying to insulting worked on the ‘clean sheet of paper’ designs preferred by you and the Administration.
“Yes, Joe, anyone who doesn’t take their word at face value is obviously engaged in fantasy. And everything Hutchison and Nelson tell you must be true because politicians never lie.”
Already answered the first sentence insult, as to the second – You do know Obama is a politician also right?
“Bizarro am smart.”
Since that makes no sense at all, I will not comment further.
Assertion monkey is asserting.
It would be cool to see all of the plans out in the open, instead of leaked so the people who like to do so can pick them apart.
Actually I mean the people who ran the Shuttle Program for thirty years and are very familiar with its hardware’s strengths/weaknesses/costs.
You think being a mechanic for 30 years makes someone a design engineer? Maybe in Bizarro World…
Ares V wasn’t a “clean sheet of paper.” And you clearly have no idea what I prefer. Next time, do a little research before you slander someone.
The NASA Administrator is named Bolden, not “Obama,” and he is a Marine Corps General, not a politician. Marines value the concept of honor. They are prepared to back it up with their lives, if necessary. That gives him somewhat higher credibility than someone who merely screams “liar” on the Internet but posts no evidence and won’t even give his last name.
Edward Wright Says:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:36 am
“The NASA Administrator is named Bolden, not “Obama,” and he is a Marine Corps General, not a politician. Marines value the concept of honor. They are prepared to back it up with their lives, if necessary. That gives him somewhat higher credibility than someone who merely screams “liar” on the Internet but posts no evidence and won’t even give his last name.”
I was not even going to bother to respond to your rant until this paragraph.
If you are going to accuse anyone of slander, you should do a little homework yourself. I have never on this website are any other called someone a liar (much less screamed “liar”). So you do not know what you are talking about.
You are one very angry individual (about what I have no idea, nor do I want to know), try not to blow a fuse, it really isn’t worth it. 🙂
I have never on this website are any other called someone a liar
No, you simply accused them of falsifying data.
Maybe there’s another word for that on your planet, but on Earth that’s called lying.
As for your “angry” accusation, I guess you big-government addicts must have that on tape. Can’t you think of anything more original
@Joe:
I’m partly serious. The centers may have started their proposal from scratch, but they could’ve wandered way in the back of an old storage building to look through ancient file cabinets for the 1970’s and 80’s proposals to turn the Space Shuttle hardware into a heavy lift vehicle by strapping two existing SRB’s to an existing external tank and putting the existing SSME engines (or J-2’s or M-1’s) under it. It’s an earlier, older design of an Energia with fewer changes to the original Shuttle system hardware.
If it’s a launch system that NASA thinks makes sense now, why didn’t they think so for the past 30 years? Is finally bending metal on a constantly rejected 70’s era configuration using 70’s era designed hardware really the way forward?
George Turner Says: July 21st, 2011 at 11:07 am
“I’m partly serious. The centers may have started their proposal from scratch, but they could’ve wandered way in the back of an old storage building to look through ancient file cabinets for the 1970′s and 80′s proposals to turn the Space Shuttle hardware into a heavy lift vehicle … “
It is true that studies of a SD HLV were begun before the first shuttle flew and have been repetitively been updated over the years. What all those iterations showed was that the vehicles were practical. I don’t think that invalidates the design, in fact just the opposite.
“If it’s a launch system that NASA thinks makes sense now, why didn’t they think so for the past 30 years?”
It’s always been a matter of politics and money (big surprise, huh?). The arguments were always made that: (1) we had the Shuttle operating and (2) there was no goal of going beyond LEO it just wasn’t needed. Argument (1) is officially gone as of today. Argument (2) is debatable since Obama ended the VSE, but I certainly hope this country has BEO ambitions.
“Is finally bending metal on a constantly rejected 70′s era configuration using 70′s era designed hardware really the way forward?”
I think that it is, just as I think the “way forward” in the early 1970’s would have been to incrementally develop the Apollo/Saturn hardware rather than junk it and start all over again with the shuttle. But that was then, this is now. Sooner or later (if we are ever going to accomplish anything long term) we are going to have to stop throwing away our assets and trying to start all over again.
Edward Wright Says: July 21st, 2011 at 10:54 am
“As for your “angry” accusation, I guess you big-government addicts must have that on tape. Can’t you think of anything more original”
So other people have noticed the anger management issues, not surprising.
Have a nice day.
@Joe:
All the proposals to re-use Apollo hardware were shot down because they were too expensive. Everything was custom and came from thousands of contractors spread all over the US. It was designed in a money-is-no-object environment, and no NASA goals required a flight rate that would justify the continued support costs. Nobody even kept using the Saturn IB’s or various follow-on proposed configurations because Titan and Atlas were cheaper.
But wasn’t the entire Shuttle program one of not throwing away any assets? Yet it didn’t accomplish anything long term because we both refused to throw it away and refused to do anything else.
In contrast, SpaceX can launch a Falcon so cheaply because they didn’t have any assets to throw away. They started from scratch, spent a couple hundred million and are flying a capsule. Meanwhile NASA has spent many billions, with a pile of legacy hardware to use, and might fly something ten years from now. Most of the legacy hardware that NASA has is expensive from the nut and bolt up, and the older it gets the more expensive it gets to stock obsolete, rare, or special use components. Changes are difficult and expensive because NASA never spent the money to transfer the Shuttle designs from paper to a CAD system. When you’ve got a White Elephant driving you broke, you need to shoot it and buy a horse.
George Turner Says: July 21st, 2011 at 12:37 pm
“All the proposals to re-use Apollo hardware were shot down because they were too expensive. Everything was custom and came from thousands of contractors spread all over the US. It was designed in a money-is-no-object environment, and no NASA goals required a flight rate that would justify the continued support costs. Nobody even kept using the Saturn IB’s or various follow-on proposed configurations because Titan and Atlas were cheaper.”
OK George I will play one more round and then I am done. In my opinion you think you know a lot of things that are not necessarily true (given the amount of misinformation flying around that is not surprising). Apollo got caught up in a political situation eerily similar in some ways to what is happening now. Nixon wanted to be done with what he considered Kennedy’s program and not to have to pay to maintain a real existing launch infrastructure (Shuttle Phase A Studies were much cheaper). It would be interesting to know if we would have even had a space program until this morning were it not for Watergate.
“But wasn’t the entire Shuttle program one of not throwing away any assets? Yet it didn’t accomplish anything long term because we both refused to throw it away and refused to do anything else.”
I am not talking about Orbiters. I am talking about facilities, capabilities and (yes I can hear the screams of pork, pork, pork coming now) trained and experienced personnel.
I am not going to try to respond to all of the rest, but will stick to two points:
Point 1: “Changes are difficult and expensive because NASA never spent the money to transfer the Shuttle designs from paper to a CAD system.”. I worked for a while in Shuttle Cargo Integration George, I do not know where you picked up that particular urban legend; but it is not true.
Point 2: “In contrast, SpaceX can launch a Falcon so cheaply because they didn’t have any assets to throw away. They started from scratch, spent a couple hundred million and are flying a capsule.” They did not start from scratch the Merlin Engines are directly from the FASTTRACK engines developed by NASA. Even hypothetically granting your premise, they have assets now (production facilities, a launch pad, and trained personnel – but of course these are good trained personnel). In a couple of years if the Administration changes should all those assets be dumped (yeah I know the answer is going to be no – because SpaceX is special)?
OK, that is it for me on this subject; I have had too many of these discussions with SpaceX aficionados to think I am going to make a dent in your reverently held beliefs.
Nice talking to you.
should all those assets be dumped?
Those assets either belong to SpaceX or are under lease. One reason for choosing that option was cost savings among others (the onsite oxygen tank alone saved them about $2m.) All decisions involve tradeoffs. Being a private company means if the government turns out to be a flaky partner they can go on without them (because they have structured their company to do so.)
Rumors exists that they have already purchased land for a launch site completely independent of government entanglements.
ken anthony Says: July 21st, 2011 at 2:39 pm
“Rumors exists”
Yes they always do.
Not to repeat myself, but I have had too many of these discussions with SpaceX aficionados to think I am going to make a dent in your reverently held beliefs.
If Apollo derivatives were killed because Shuttle studies were cheaper, who kept launching all those Deltas, Titans, Thors, and Atlases? We didn’t stop using expendable vehicles, we stopped using Saturn program expendables.
I heard that from former Johnson Flight Center Director and NASA Deputy Administrator Aaron Cohen, who in a lecture talked about the cost option of converting to CAD, which came in at about $35 million, which they didn’t spring for, and how they still had to go back to the paper prints whenever they made changes. He retired in ’93, so maybe they converted the designs to CAD sometime after he left, but as of 2005 when he gave the lecture, he was still pretty sure they hadn’t put it into CAD. Maybe they’re working on that now so the museums can have a copy.
George Turner Says: July 21st, 2011 at 3:12 pm
I do not what Mr. Cohen may or may not have said, but I began work at JSC in 1982. There were drafting boards around still, but all the draftsmen were already taking night courses in computers to prepare for the change.
The last time I even saw a drafting board was in 1998 and that was at Star City in Moscow (I remember it because it seemed so unusual). Of course now we have to buy tickets from them, so maybe we actually should have stuck with the drafting boards.
I’m sure anything built after the Shuttle used CAD, and I’m sure the updated flight controls and cargo bay were long ago put into CAD, but I don’t think they saw much point in converting thousands of machining drawings for wing rivets and such into CAD.
The lecture was among the MIT video lectures on Space Shuttle system engineering, which is well worth watching, consisting of two hour lectures from people like Aaron Cohen, Chris Kraft, Bass Red, and others.
In lecture 19 Aaron Cohen relates a story about the Apollo budget numbers. The centers had their cost estimates, and Gilruth was about to present them to the President.
“What’s the number?”
“About ten billion.”
“I’ll tell the President twenty.”
Considering the topic of this thread, watching lecture 19 might be recommended, as it goes into detail on how to do cost estimation on rocket development.
George Turner Says: July 21st, 2011 at 6:02 pm
“of machining drawings for wing rivets and such into CAD.”
That would go very far down into the supplier level, not even sure those guys would need NASA approval to change to CAD (or not). I doubt many current suppliers are still using Drafting Boards
In any case those would not be big overall cost drivers.