17 thoughts on ““We Are Collectively Perpetrating A Fraud””
Of course the problem with getting rid of the SLS is that NASA would just replace it with another super expensive flagship HSF program that will keep all the hungry centers fat with Congressional pork. Its a symptom of dysfunctional culture left at NASA after Project Apollo rather than the core problem.
That is why its either better to move beyond NASA recognizing it as been off the critical path to space settlement and development for decades, or get rid of NASA all together and replace it with smaller more focused organizations. Since the latter is probably impossible given the Congressional support for NASA pork, and the new space advocates also dependent on it for filling the rice bowls of the New Space contractors I advocate the former.
I disagree. With the change in US President, the appointment of the new NASA director Bolden, plus the cancellation of Constellation the path was open to rethink the whole thing over again. It was Congress and Senate which ramrod the SLS against current NASA administration wishes and against the conclusions of the Augustine Report.
While they did cancel Ares I they basically kept the Ares V design more or less as it was and sold it as the SLS. When they saw J-2X development was pushing costs up they went with the Delta IV derived second stage. Just like when Ares V was being “developed” the design keeps perpetually changing as they further realize the system, as originally conceived, just does not work.
One could say that SLS is similar enough to the DIRECT proposal that originated from inside NASA proper but the fact is things did not need to happen this way. In my opinion the SLS offers very little for what it is costing so far.
I will give you some examples of things that are actually needed or useful. RL60 engine to increase performance and decrease costs for RL10 powered upper stages. ACES upper stage. RD-180 engine replacement. I suspect the DoD will be the ones which will end up footing the bill while NASA dumps more money into this lunacy.
It would be better to improve the performance of current launch systems in ways that also make them more viable for the commercial and defense sector and work on an exploration architecture based around multiple launches. We are not in the 1960s anymore and things like autonomous robotic docking are not an insurmountable problem.
Godzilla,
I have been hearing that since the Kennedy/Johnson era. All we need is a new President, a clear vision for NASA and an Administrator who would implement it.
And all we have gotten for the last 45 years is nothing. The problem is not with the President, or finding the right Administrator, its with NASA. Organizations have life cycles, when the past their maturity they stagnant from folks that don’t want to rock the boat and just keep the paycheck flowing. In private industry that is when the organization is bought out or goes bankrupt from a new competitor, or is forces to reboot due to fierce competition. None of these apply to a government agency like NASA. The only solution is to pull the plug, shut it down and start U.S. space policy with a clean sheet.
But lacking a major crisis like Sputnik (i.e. fierce competition), it is not going to happen. That is why its time to for space advocates to just move beyond NASA. It is time to recognize has cease to be relevant to the vision of space settlement and economic development of the Solar System.
Admittedly, it is very hard to radically reform and/or eliminate whole government agencies, but it has been done on occasion. The old Civil Aeronautics Board that fixed airline ticket prices is an example. Once the philosophical decision to deregulate the airline industry was made, the whole agency was rendered redundant and was shuttered. Probably the only unambiguously good decision Jimmy Carter ever made.
NASA is unlikely to go all at once like the late CAB, but it could easily go a large piece at a time over a period of just a few years. The main driver will be the advancement of demonstrated, economical operational spaceflight capability on the part of the private commercial sector such that many NASA programs, including all the worst, are rendered embarrassingly redundant in a way that is visible to the general public. As commercial space chalks up more milestones that can resonate with the general public – first launch of a new BFR (Falcon Heavy) from the pad Neil, Buzz and Mike launched from, first commercial manned orbital mission (Dragon V2), first commercial flight of a manned, winged mini-Shuttle (Dream Chaser) – even the mainstream media will inevitably draw invidious comparisons between these successes, and their low price tags, and NASA programs which are slow, inferior and ruinously expensive.
Once FH and at least Dragon V2 are real, political momentum will begin to build toward cancellation of SLS and Orion. Once a Bigelow station is in LEO, winding down ISS will no longer seem unthinkable. Another year or two of Russian misbehavior is simply going to accelerate the needed shift in public perceptions to allow the political headspace for either an orderly shutdown of ISS or its transfer to Russian-free commercial operation. The build-up of public attention and disapproval of the status quo will allow the entrenched political partisans of NASA pork to finally be overthrown. It may even prove possible to close some NASA centers that have been attractive nuisances in all this.
NASA could take an additional hit if the James Webb Space Telescope has any deployment failures and/or serious shortcomings or failures in early operation. Perhaps the first manned cis-lunar BEO mission – undertaken using commercial vehicles – will be to repair the JWST. This could result in major COTS-style changes to the way NASA develops high-profile science missions and who contracts to build and launch them.
NASA could be very different, and smaller, in just a few years’ time.
Dick,
Actually he did it to the Interstate Commerce Commission too which saved the railroads.
Yeah, railroads and trucking lines. Good point.
“NASA would just replace it with another super expensive flagship HSF program”
Everything in space is expensive. There is a 100% chance that a HSF program ran by NASA or someone else will be expensive. Even SpaceX is expensive. Whatever alternative you imagine, will also be expensive.
“or get rid of NASA all together and replace it with smaller more focused organizations”
So, instead of one flawed government program we get five flawed government programs. That should work well.
Well, Rand, on the one hand, safety is NASA’s #1 priority, and the safest space mission is the one that never even tries to leave the ground. On the other hand, we’ll have oodles of cool PowerPoints and animations, thanks to that $160 billion. Gripping hand, we do have SpaceX, so not all hope is lost.
In each of those three fiscal years, Congress appropriated more money for SLS/Orion than requested by the Obama administration in its proposed annual budgets. But due to sequestration, delayed passage of those budgets, and continuing resolutions until Congress got its act together, NASA fell behind just as it had in the prior decade when Congress underfunded Constellation.
Mike Griffin says he got every dollar for Constellation he ever asked Congress for. Stephen admits Congress is giving Bolden more money than he’s asking for, and yet the conclusion he still comes to is “not enough money”.
If you want to know what’s wrong with NASA, it’s not budget. Giving NASA more money will not fix the problem. When you talk to people working on SLS they will tell you that everything is going great. If you ask 90% of SLS detractors what’s wrong with it, they’ll struggle to come up with an answer, or they’ll just repeat illogical nonsense they heard on the Internet and didn’t really understand.
It’s entirely possible that SLS will be a flawless program with no budget overruns, no schedule slips and no catastrophic explosions. I strongly doubt it, but even if it all goes great, the intended outcome is just a big stupid rocket – it’s the shuttle without wings – which might some day carry a few government employees on a site seeing expedition where they might do some “science”. The problem with SLS is that it’s nothing new. It won’t change the way NASA has been doing space for the last half century and that needs to change, either by reforming this broken institution or disbanding it.
Not disagreeing with your points so much, but SLS is a product of its environment, not the other way around. The goals were to spend a lot of money and create a HLV without a defined mission, and by those metrics, it’s been successful so far.
The problem with SLS is that it’s nothing new.
I’m not sure that’s the biggest problem. In my opinion the biggest problem is that it displaces something that could have opened up space for mankind. If exploration were done with competitively procured launch services, then we could expect to see many new entrants and massive price reductions. All you would need is a refuelable storable spacecraft, maybe a lander, maybe an orbital spacecraft, which is nothing new either.
Fortunately it looks as if we lucked out with Elon Musk, and may still get the RLVs and massive price reductions reasonably soon.
I’m not following your logic. How does NASA sending a few civil servants to look at rocks open the solar system, no matter how they do it? So many space advocates seem to have the plan:
1. NASA sends a few astronauts to look at rocks.
2. ???
3. Colonies on Mars!
If they do it with commercially procured launch services they’ll have to create a large and fiercely competitive propellant launch market in the process. That will enable massive investments in RLV development by existing players as well as new entrants. The less money is spent on fancy new hardware, the more money is left for launches and missions. Also, the sooner this happens, the better. Nothing new isn’t always a bad thing.
I used to think I probably wasn’t going to see RLVs in my lifetime unless this happened first, but thanks to Elon Musk I now still have hope. It would still be better, now, or even ten years from now, if NASA did create that market as well. I don’t think it will happen, but it can’t hurt to point it out. As for Matula’s point about moving beyond NASA, I think that is just spin for stop criticising his precious NASA. I’m sure he’d like it if we did that, but we won’t.
Ad astra by government demand inflation. I think the flaw with your thinking is simply that NASA will have control over how much propellant storage there is on-orbit. It’ll get filled quickly, then they’ll suddenly say “okay, we have enough fuel now, bye everyone!” and then all those scrappy launch companies will discover that they’re overbuilt. What happens then?
What makes me think it’ll happen like this? Because that’s exactly what happened with the EELV program. The result of government intervention in markets is more government intervention in markets, consolidation and regulatory capture.
So once you’ve make the ULA of propellant depots, what’ll you make next to open the solar system? The ULA of Mars cyclers? Then maybe a nice “Mars economic development board”.
On the other hand, if NASA were to just go away right now, people like Dennis Tito trying to raise money for Inspiration Mars wouldn’t run into the brick wall of “isn’t that the government’s job?”
“I talked to [Administrator] Charlie Bolden yesterday and told him he has to follow the law, which requires a new rocket by 2016,” says Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). “And . . . within the budget the law requires . . .”
I hear that, in the interests of efficiency, Nelson will be sponsoring a law requiring that π equal 3.
Law degrees. Is there anything they can’t do?
The problem is bigger than SLS and NASA.
Perpetrating a fraud has no penalty in this country today. That’s what must be fixed and the solution is to educate the next generation. I don’t see it happening.
Of course the problem with getting rid of the SLS is that NASA would just replace it with another super expensive flagship HSF program that will keep all the hungry centers fat with Congressional pork. Its a symptom of dysfunctional culture left at NASA after Project Apollo rather than the core problem.
That is why its either better to move beyond NASA recognizing it as been off the critical path to space settlement and development for decades, or get rid of NASA all together and replace it with smaller more focused organizations. Since the latter is probably impossible given the Congressional support for NASA pork, and the new space advocates also dependent on it for filling the rice bowls of the New Space contractors I advocate the former.
I disagree. With the change in US President, the appointment of the new NASA director Bolden, plus the cancellation of Constellation the path was open to rethink the whole thing over again. It was Congress and Senate which ramrod the SLS against current NASA administration wishes and against the conclusions of the Augustine Report.
While they did cancel Ares I they basically kept the Ares V design more or less as it was and sold it as the SLS. When they saw J-2X development was pushing costs up they went with the Delta IV derived second stage. Just like when Ares V was being “developed” the design keeps perpetually changing as they further realize the system, as originally conceived, just does not work.
One could say that SLS is similar enough to the DIRECT proposal that originated from inside NASA proper but the fact is things did not need to happen this way. In my opinion the SLS offers very little for what it is costing so far.
I will give you some examples of things that are actually needed or useful. RL60 engine to increase performance and decrease costs for RL10 powered upper stages. ACES upper stage. RD-180 engine replacement. I suspect the DoD will be the ones which will end up footing the bill while NASA dumps more money into this lunacy.
It would be better to improve the performance of current launch systems in ways that also make them more viable for the commercial and defense sector and work on an exploration architecture based around multiple launches. We are not in the 1960s anymore and things like autonomous robotic docking are not an insurmountable problem.
Godzilla,
I have been hearing that since the Kennedy/Johnson era. All we need is a new President, a clear vision for NASA and an Administrator who would implement it.
And all we have gotten for the last 45 years is nothing. The problem is not with the President, or finding the right Administrator, its with NASA. Organizations have life cycles, when the past their maturity they stagnant from folks that don’t want to rock the boat and just keep the paycheck flowing. In private industry that is when the organization is bought out or goes bankrupt from a new competitor, or is forces to reboot due to fierce competition. None of these apply to a government agency like NASA. The only solution is to pull the plug, shut it down and start U.S. space policy with a clean sheet.
But lacking a major crisis like Sputnik (i.e. fierce competition), it is not going to happen. That is why its time to for space advocates to just move beyond NASA. It is time to recognize has cease to be relevant to the vision of space settlement and economic development of the Solar System.
Admittedly, it is very hard to radically reform and/or eliminate whole government agencies, but it has been done on occasion. The old Civil Aeronautics Board that fixed airline ticket prices is an example. Once the philosophical decision to deregulate the airline industry was made, the whole agency was rendered redundant and was shuttered. Probably the only unambiguously good decision Jimmy Carter ever made.
NASA is unlikely to go all at once like the late CAB, but it could easily go a large piece at a time over a period of just a few years. The main driver will be the advancement of demonstrated, economical operational spaceflight capability on the part of the private commercial sector such that many NASA programs, including all the worst, are rendered embarrassingly redundant in a way that is visible to the general public. As commercial space chalks up more milestones that can resonate with the general public – first launch of a new BFR (Falcon Heavy) from the pad Neil, Buzz and Mike launched from, first commercial manned orbital mission (Dragon V2), first commercial flight of a manned, winged mini-Shuttle (Dream Chaser) – even the mainstream media will inevitably draw invidious comparisons between these successes, and their low price tags, and NASA programs which are slow, inferior and ruinously expensive.
Once FH and at least Dragon V2 are real, political momentum will begin to build toward cancellation of SLS and Orion. Once a Bigelow station is in LEO, winding down ISS will no longer seem unthinkable. Another year or two of Russian misbehavior is simply going to accelerate the needed shift in public perceptions to allow the political headspace for either an orderly shutdown of ISS or its transfer to Russian-free commercial operation. The build-up of public attention and disapproval of the status quo will allow the entrenched political partisans of NASA pork to finally be overthrown. It may even prove possible to close some NASA centers that have been attractive nuisances in all this.
NASA could take an additional hit if the James Webb Space Telescope has any deployment failures and/or serious shortcomings or failures in early operation. Perhaps the first manned cis-lunar BEO mission – undertaken using commercial vehicles – will be to repair the JWST. This could result in major COTS-style changes to the way NASA develops high-profile science missions and who contracts to build and launch them.
NASA could be very different, and smaller, in just a few years’ time.
Dick,
Actually he did it to the Interstate Commerce Commission too which saved the railroads.
Yeah, railroads and trucking lines. Good point.
“NASA would just replace it with another super expensive flagship HSF program”
Everything in space is expensive. There is a 100% chance that a HSF program ran by NASA or someone else will be expensive. Even SpaceX is expensive. Whatever alternative you imagine, will also be expensive.
“or get rid of NASA all together and replace it with smaller more focused organizations”
So, instead of one flawed government program we get five flawed government programs. That should work well.
Well, Rand, on the one hand, safety is NASA’s #1 priority, and the safest space mission is the one that never even tries to leave the ground. On the other hand, we’ll have oodles of cool PowerPoints and animations, thanks to that $160 billion. Gripping hand, we do have SpaceX, so not all hope is lost.
In each of those three fiscal years, Congress appropriated more money for SLS/Orion than requested by the Obama administration in its proposed annual budgets. But due to sequestration, delayed passage of those budgets, and continuing resolutions until Congress got its act together, NASA fell behind just as it had in the prior decade when Congress underfunded Constellation.
Mike Griffin says he got every dollar for Constellation he ever asked Congress for. Stephen admits Congress is giving Bolden more money than he’s asking for, and yet the conclusion he still comes to is “not enough money”.
If you want to know what’s wrong with NASA, it’s not budget. Giving NASA more money will not fix the problem. When you talk to people working on SLS they will tell you that everything is going great. If you ask 90% of SLS detractors what’s wrong with it, they’ll struggle to come up with an answer, or they’ll just repeat illogical nonsense they heard on the Internet and didn’t really understand.
It’s entirely possible that SLS will be a flawless program with no budget overruns, no schedule slips and no catastrophic explosions. I strongly doubt it, but even if it all goes great, the intended outcome is just a big stupid rocket – it’s the shuttle without wings – which might some day carry a few government employees on a site seeing expedition where they might do some “science”. The problem with SLS is that it’s nothing new. It won’t change the way NASA has been doing space for the last half century and that needs to change, either by reforming this broken institution or disbanding it.
Not disagreeing with your points so much, but SLS is a product of its environment, not the other way around. The goals were to spend a lot of money and create a HLV without a defined mission, and by those metrics, it’s been successful so far.
The problem with SLS is that it’s nothing new.
I’m not sure that’s the biggest problem. In my opinion the biggest problem is that it displaces something that could have opened up space for mankind. If exploration were done with competitively procured launch services, then we could expect to see many new entrants and massive price reductions. All you would need is a refuelable storable spacecraft, maybe a lander, maybe an orbital spacecraft, which is nothing new either.
Fortunately it looks as if we lucked out with Elon Musk, and may still get the RLVs and massive price reductions reasonably soon.
I’m not following your logic. How does NASA sending a few civil servants to look at rocks open the solar system, no matter how they do it? So many space advocates seem to have the plan:
1. NASA sends a few astronauts to look at rocks.
2. ???
3. Colonies on Mars!
If they do it with commercially procured launch services they’ll have to create a large and fiercely competitive propellant launch market in the process. That will enable massive investments in RLV development by existing players as well as new entrants. The less money is spent on fancy new hardware, the more money is left for launches and missions. Also, the sooner this happens, the better. Nothing new isn’t always a bad thing.
I used to think I probably wasn’t going to see RLVs in my lifetime unless this happened first, but thanks to Elon Musk I now still have hope. It would still be better, now, or even ten years from now, if NASA did create that market as well. I don’t think it will happen, but it can’t hurt to point it out. As for Matula’s point about moving beyond NASA, I think that is just spin for stop criticising his precious NASA. I’m sure he’d like it if we did that, but we won’t.
Ad astra by government demand inflation. I think the flaw with your thinking is simply that NASA will have control over how much propellant storage there is on-orbit. It’ll get filled quickly, then they’ll suddenly say “okay, we have enough fuel now, bye everyone!” and then all those scrappy launch companies will discover that they’re overbuilt. What happens then?
What makes me think it’ll happen like this? Because that’s exactly what happened with the EELV program. The result of government intervention in markets is more government intervention in markets, consolidation and regulatory capture.
So once you’ve make the ULA of propellant depots, what’ll you make next to open the solar system? The ULA of Mars cyclers? Then maybe a nice “Mars economic development board”.
On the other hand, if NASA were to just go away right now, people like Dennis Tito trying to raise money for Inspiration Mars wouldn’t run into the brick wall of “isn’t that the government’s job?”
“I talked to [Administrator] Charlie Bolden yesterday and told him he has to follow the law, which requires a new rocket by 2016,” says Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). “And . . . within the budget the law requires . . .”
I hear that, in the interests of efficiency, Nelson will be sponsoring a law requiring that π equal 3.
Law degrees. Is there anything they can’t do?
The problem is bigger than SLS and NASA.
Perpetrating a fraud has no penalty in this country today. That’s what must be fixed and the solution is to educate the next generation. I don’t see it happening.