Clark Lindsey has some realistic perspective:
After the noise dies away from the hearings on the NASA budget, the harsh reality of NASA’s limited budget is going to sink in with Congress just as it did for the Augustine panel when they started to look at the numbers. Constellation just won’t fit. You can’t fly the ISS, keep all those Shuttle workers employed and proceed with Ares/Orion. Shelby et al will try to save Constellation but the vast majority of the appropriators have much, much higher priorities than NASA and they are not going to boost the agency’s budget just to preserve a $100B+ billion dollar program that the NASA administrator, a blue-ribbon panel, the President and common sense all say is not viable.
He also points to a useful recent precedent:
Despite all that noise and anger and legislative maneuvers, by the end of July the plan was accepted: The F-22: Senate Votes to End Production – TIME – July.22.09. Congress as a whole decided that the negatives were not nearly as bad as claimed and the positives were too good to reject.
If Bolden and the administration push in a similar vigorous and sustained manner for their NASA plan, they will also win. As I’ve noted before, President Obama would no doubt love to battle Congressional members who want to force him to spend tens of billions of dollars on a failed Moon program, especially when most of that opposition consists of supposedly small-government, pro-business, anti-deficit Republicans. (Could just see him in a public forum saying that continuing the Moon program would be “an inexcusable waste of money”.)
I hope that the days of NASA as pork, as opposed to progress, are at least coming to a middle, if not an end. And the ironies continue to abound.
Why would they resurrect Canstellation? They’ve already taught Griffin his lesson.
As Bill Claybaugh said:
“I told Griffin when he took the job that he should study the history of the Roman Emperor Julian II, grandson to Constintine the Great, who tried to re-establish the old religions and who died in battle from a spear in the back…a Roman spear.
Understand that in Washington one does not crush one’s opponents. Rather, one gives them what the say they want and then holds them strictly accountable for delivering it while the budget for it is cut, year after year. Remember this about the current “new” plan in five years time….”
Constellation and Apollo on steroids had few friends in DC. Best bet is:
– ISS will be extended to 2020.
– Constellation will be killed
– none of Obamas research projects will be funded. Not even the couple billion for climate change.
– Russian and CoTS will fly the two US crew fights a year to the ISS after shuttle.
There might be a successful push to continue shuttle, or quick field a shuttle replacement. I do think moving NASA out of the Maned space fight busness, and dropping all pretense of developing or exploring space with people will not go over with the public. Good political hay can be made out of “Obama wanted the gov to take over all medical care and car companies, but trusted upstart commercials who never flew anyone to carry astrounauts into the final frounter?”
I do think moving NASA out of the Maned space fight busness, and dropping all pretense of developing or exploring space with people will not go over with the public.
It probably wouldn’t if that’s what were happening. But the only people who think that’s happening are people who don’t understand the new policy.
>> I do think moving NASA out of the Maned space fight busness,
>> and dropping all pretense of developing or exploring space with
>> people will not go over with the public.
> It probably wouldn’t if that’s what were happening. But the only
> people who think that’s happening are people who don’t understand
> the new policy.
The shuttles are going into museums, at that point NASA will have no craft to carry people anywhere, nor any defined anywhere they plan to take folks if asked (Bolden was ask during testimony), and US astronauts will be outbiding tourists for flight space on Russian Soyuz craft. NASA has no plans to develop any maned craft, but may – if commercial crew carry craft of acceptable quality become avalible – get tickets on commercial craft to the IS rather then Soyuz. While India (the former poster child of third world backwardness) is building and flying. Thtas going to be politically embarasing – and selling that as the end of NASA being in the maned space flight business will easy.
I don’t think the public cares either way about spaceflight, which is exactly why all this hubbub about “needing a destination” rings so false.
We had a destination the last five years — the Moon. No one cared, the media ignored it, and even NASA did a half-assed job explaining why we were going back in glorified Apollo technology.
Even if 2015 rolls around and all this new Obama plan has gotten us is some bare-bones Dragons in LEO, a HLV test, and pretty HD live feeds from the robots on the Moon’s surface, we will still have a tech base and space industry far deeper and wider than what we were gonna get with the current plan. I wish Congress would get that through their thick skulls.
The comparison of Constellation with the F-22 is a good one, and should give pause to those who think that just because some congressional loudmouths have their face in the Constellation trough, Constellation can’t be killed off. The killing is a mercy killing, however, because the program was unsustainable and possibly not even technologically achievable.. F-22 was technologically achievable and quite sustainable. It just wasn’t needed.
The point that NASA should move beyond human spaceflight (which is a generous way of putting it) is an interesting one. The recent consternation by USAF flyboys about Predators replacing “real pilots” in the interest of mission success is worth noting in this regard. I would like to believe that NASA could find a way to express the unambiguous need for humans in meeting national space needs, but it has done a poor job of doing so, as yet.
Clark’s analysis is more than a bit flawed for the following reasons:
First, there will be a number of F 22s in the Air Force inventory, just not as many as most analysts think are needed.
Second, the Administration could point to the F 35 as an alternative. There is no alternative (yet) being proposed for Constellation.
Third, Obama was at the height of his power and popularity last year. This year he is in the low 40s in most polls and sinking.
Besides, I wonder if a future administration will revive the F 22 just as Reagan did the Carter cancelled B 1 bomber.
The shuttles are going into museums, at that point NASA will have no craft to carry people anywhere, nor any defined anywhere they plan to take folks if asked (Bolden was ask during testimony), and US astronauts will be outbiding tourists for flight space on Russian Soyuz craft.
In other words, that part will be exactly the same as the plan with Constellation.
NASA has no plans to develop any maned craft, but may – if commercial crew carry craft of acceptable quality become avalible – get tickets on commercial craft to the IS rather then Soyuz.
Good. A vast improvement.
While India (the former poster child of third world backwardness) is building and flying. Thtas going to be politically embarasing – and selling that as the end of NASA being in the maned space flight business will easy.
When there are many more NASA astronauts going to space than there were during the Shuttle era, it would be an easy sell only to morons.
There is no alternative (yet) being proposed for Constellation.
There are multiple, redundant alternatives being proposed. A much better situation.
I think in the debate over the new Obama plan it’s important to make a distinction between LEO manned ops and beyond LEO.
Many of the more respected critics of the Obama plan, such as Burt Rutan, don’t have any issue with the LEO part of the plan, they have a problem with the beyond LEO plan.
In that sense Mark is correct. There is no alternative for Constellation being promised, unless one counts magic rocket technology that supposedly will get a spacecraft to Mars in 39 days. Only suckers buy that premise.
Sure Constellation was a dead end and wouldn’t have worked. But Obama didn’t provide a realistic alternative. Obama didn’t just kill Constellation, he killed VSE too.
The worst problem of the Obama plan is it’s phoniness. He’s trying to eat his cake and have it too. His administration is trying to avoid taking the political hit for killing manned space exploration, by claiming the new program still supports it. When the reality is the new program is LEO centric and roped to keeping the ISS flying perhaps even beyond 2020.
It’s a return to the Clinton era of NASA HSF. ISS forever. Forget about that Moon, Mars and Beyond stuff. That’s just science fiction.
Obama didn’t just kill Constellation, he killed VSE too.
In embracing commercial crew transport and investing in high-payoff long-lead technologies, Obama moved forward two key recommendations from VSE’s Aldridge Commission. It remains to be seen if Obama builds on this to open the rest of the solar system, as the Vision hoped to.
Rand,
I think this poll on how the public sees are military declining is relevant to the decision to not go ahead with the full planned production run of the F-22.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126218/Americans-Military-No-Not-Yrs.aspx
It also fits with the Russians beginning the test program of its successor.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html
Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA
Yes, it will be interesting to see if the F-22 ends up being put back into production by the next administration. I do hope they save the tooling for it.
But a better analogy would be the decision to shut down product of the C-17. Originally it was intended to serve commercial markets as well as the needs of USAF airlift. But the commercial markets just never emerged for a vehicle designed to meet government needs, just as in the case of the C-5. So the jobs for the C-17 are going away when the government production run is finished.
It will be interesting in a few years to see if the experience of the C-5 and C-17 will also apply to the vehicles developed for commercial crew and if the production of those vehicles end with the end of the ISS.
This is really the core of the debate over the commercial crew decision.
Will it indeed jump start commercial human orbital flight as many New Space advocate believe? Or merely create a new generation of government contractors who get paid a bit differently by the government for their product without creating a new age of space commerce.
The key I feel will be how closely NASA controls the procurement process. My opinion is that since it is now seen as the prime path they will micromanage it. Their focus on developing new human rating standards that will be written into the contracts for commercial crew is not a good sign that it will open a new age of commercial human spaceflight as many New Space Advocates believe.
That is why I suspect in 2-3 years space advocates will be recalling the good old days when NASA was focused on Ares 1 and COTS was free to develop on its own path to success. Folks who don’t learn from history (X-33…) are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. But we shall see in a few years…
There may be some extra F-22 produced. The F-35 is running into problems as expected. It is a lot of things to a lot of people. When you got an airplane that is supposed to be used by the USAF, the Navy, the Marines, from doing air to air combat with conventional horizontal takeoff and landing, to doing bombing missions with vertical takeoff and landing… well…
There is a definitive potential for a canceled or lame program there.
At least they will not be shutting down the F-22 engine power plant because the F-35 also uses it.
In that sense Mark is correct. There is no alternative for Constellation being promised, unless one counts magic rocket technology that supposedly will get a spacecraft to Mars in 39 days. Only suckers buy that premise.
You believe that physics is “magic,” Brad?
I think Arthur C. Clarke said something about that.
“The [atomic] bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert on explosives.” — Admiral William Leahy
Ed, I posted a link which I guess is still stuck in spam filtering. Just google news “39 days to Mars” or youtube “bolden’s magic rocket” to see what I’m talking about.
The fact is VASIMR is being promoted as the magic rocket. So please don’t lecture me.
Brad,
Paul Spudis does a pretty good analysis of the VASIMR here.
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2010/02/27/talismanic-thinking/
Talismanic Thinking
Thomas
Interesting editorial, though of course there are many parts I differ with. I also think the point Paul made about VASIMR could have been made more explicit, instead of just focusing on the lack of a power source for VASIMR.
I wish VASIMR could do what some claim, propel a manned mission to Mars with a transit time of 39 days. But the simple fact is, that is a fantasy. VASIMR is nothing more than an electric rocket, however interesting, and suffers from the drawbacks of all electric rockets, which is a tiny thrust to weight ratio.
Even though electric rockets have the ISP to achieve high velocities, they accelerate so slowly that a trip to Mars could not be shorter than a year. Only a rocket with both a high ISP and high thrust could make a super quick trip to Mars. And the only concept I know of that has both high ISP and high thrust is the Orion nuclear pulse drive, and fat chance that would ever be accepted.
Electric propulsion for manned Mars missions seems to have been a favorite of Soviet dreamers. Which probably explains why the clever Hall effect plasma thruster was developed there. But the Soviets had no illusions about electric propulsion and understood it’s limitations including slow transit times to Mars.
I’ve never understood the mania some have for VASIMR. And more mature technology like the Hall plasma thruster looks like it could do the job of a manned Mars mission just as well if not better. Though certainly not in the fantasy realm of 39 day trips to Mars!
The Soviets had two programs for Mars propulsion using N1 technology for the launcher. One used nuclear-thermal (RD-0410 comes from that effort), the other nuclear-electric. Korolev was in favor of nuclear-electric.
They also had some solar-electric proposals nearer the end.
IMO there is a lot of potential with solar electric.
If you read the nuclear-electric proposals in space, they usually require a lot of huge heat sinks using radiative cooling for the core. This seems like a waste of weight and energy to me. Why not just dump the heat into some fuel and vent it overboard for propulsion?
To me it is either nuclear-thermal, solar-thermal. Nuclear-electric needs someone to figure out how to build the heat sinks properly, solar-electric needs someone to figure out how to build huge efficient collapsible panels (the ones in ISS are a step forward I guess). Electric is also most suited for robotic missions.
Still, I think ISRU and chemical rockets are likely enough.
the beyond LEO plan. In that sense Mark is correct. There is no alternative for Constellation being promised
So what? Why are you taking my tax money to fund space tourism that not even tech billionaires can afford?
Paul Spudis wrote (link above): Those at the top need to know where they are going and understand why; the fact that they currently do not bodes ill for the future of our country.
Spudis invokes the oldest and worst talismanic thinking of them all: that our leaders can be supermen, omniscient deities who can prophesy the future.
I also think the point Paul made about VASIMR could have been made more explicit, instead of just focusing on the lack of a power source for VASIMR.
Why do you and Tom depend on a geologist as your source for information about rocket engines? If you wanted to learn about rocks, would you ask an aerospace engineer?
I wish VASIMR could do what some claim, propel a manned mission to Mars with a transit time of 39 days. But the simple fact is, that is a fantasy. VASIMR is nothing more than an electric rocket, however interesting, and suffers from the drawbacks of all electric rockets, which is a tiny thrust to weight ratio.
No, VASIMR is designed so it’s possible to “dial up” the thrust (as the expense of Isp). Hence the name — VAriable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket.
How well it will work is an open question, but comments about low thrust and “magic” are uninformed.
Only a rocket with both a high ISP and high thrust could make a super quick trip to Mars. And the only concept I know of that has both high ISP and high thrust is the Orion nuclear pulse drive, and fat chance that would ever be accepted.
Just because you don’t about something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or can’t be developed.
Also, General Bolden never said that VASIMR was the only technology NASA would work on, he said it was one example. Don’t fall victim to the Highlander Syndrome. Contrary to Duncan MacLeod, there *can* be more than one.
> Rand Simberg Says:
> February 28th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
>> The shuttles are going into museums, at that point NASA will
>> have no craft to carry people anywhere, nor any defined anywhere
>> they plan to take folks if asked (Bolden was ask during testimony),
>> and US astronauts will be outbiding tourists for flight space on
>> Russian Soyuz craft.
> In other words, that part will be exactly the same as the plan with Constellation.
Pretty much except for their being a stated goal in Constellation — not one they could get to with Constellation though.
>>NASA has no plans to develop any maned craft, but may – if
>> commercial crew carry craft of acceptable quality become
>> avalible – get tickets on commercial craft to the IS rather then Soyuz.
> Good. A vast improvement.
Big disagree there.
>> While India (the former poster child of third world backwardness)
>> is building and flying. Thtas going to be politically embarasing –
>> and selling that as the end of NASA being in the maned space
>> flight business will easy.
> When there are many more NASA astronauts going to space than
> there were during the Shuttle era, ==
When? That ain’t even a “if” with the NASA plan outlined! More like a 80% decline for shuttle year averages.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> February 28th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
> Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA
> Yes, it will be interesting to see if the F-22 ends up being put back into production
> by the next administration. I do hope they save the tooling for it.
>
> But a better analogy would be the decision to shut down product of the C-17. ==
A interesting nit. The programs for both weren’t extended – but neaithers production line shuts down for a year or 2. (Still have orders to run off) so a extension for eiather has no “restart a deadline” issues.
>This is really the core of the debate over the commercial crew decision.
>
> Will it indeed jump start commercial human orbital flight as many New Space advocate
> believe? Or merely create a new generation of government contractors who get paid a
> bit differently by the government for their product without creating a new age of space commerce.
I literally can’t grasp any reason to beleave the former?
Ed
“No, VASIMR is designed so it’s possible to “dial up” the thrust (as the expense of Isp). Hence the name — VAriable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket. How well it will work is an open question, but comments about low thrust and “magic” are uninformed.”
Good grief.
I know all about VASIMR. The variable ISP is nothing special as NASA is also developing other electric rockets with variable ISP. And there is nothing mysterious about VASIMR performance. It’s easy to look up for anyone who bothers.
Bottom line. A VASIMR, when operating at an ISP similar to an NTR of the type developed back in the 1960’s, has at least 1,500 times LOWER thrust to weight ratio than the NTR. Even though the NTR has a crappy 4.0 T/W ratio!
The VASIMR engine does not covert electric power into thrust any more efficiently than existing electric rockets. That means a 300 kg VASIMR engine only generates 5 N of thrust when operating at 5,000 ISP. If a highly advanced nuclear electric power source such as the SAFE-400 design were to provide VASIMR power, that alone quadruples the total mass of the system. Then added to that mass is the mass of a radiator system to reject waste heat from the nuclear power plant, which makes the total system mass even worse.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. And VASIMR is not a magic rocket.
> Rand Simberg Says:
> February 28th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
>> The shuttles are going into museums, at that point NASA will
>> have no craft to carry people anywhere, nor any defined anywhere
>> they plan to take folks if asked (Bolden was ask during testimony),
>> and US astronauts will be outbiding tourists for flight space on
>> Russian Soyuz craft.
> In other words, that part will be exactly the same as the plan with Constellation.
Pretty much except for their being a stated goal in Constellation — not one they could get to with Constellation though.
So Kelly, if the results are the same either way, you think it’s worth an extra $35B to have a stated goal?
>john hare Says:
>
> So Kelly, if the results are the same either way, you think it’s worth an
> extra $35B to have a stated goal?
Having a goal, some intention to do something, is certainly better. But both result in NASA reduced to utter uselessnes. Both Constellation and Obama’s plan are disgusting.
I suppose the one plus is Constellation doesn’t pull the plug on as much of NASA.