Lots more budget discussion over at Space Politics today.

As I noted yesterday, I think that this is the biggest problem with ESAS:

Griffin will be gone in January 2009. He needs to put his overall strategy in place — so that it is sustained beyond January 2009. “Anonymous” has separately made a very good case that Griffin’s strategy to put tons of near-term $$ into a new LV which mostly duplicates existing capabilities — and very little current funding into the real lunar parts of the architecture (the Ares 5 and the LSAM) — is poorly thought out because of the January 2009 deadline.

I think that, as was the case with space station for years, we are watching a slow-motion train wreck. Fortunately, NASA's not the only game in town any more.

[Update a few minutes later]

And it looks like Lockheed Martin is still positioning itself to pick up the pieces:

United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and SpaceDev, a small entrepreneur driven company, both expect to compete in the developing arena, company officials said at the 10th annual commercial space transportation conference.

"We're very excited about the new low earth orbit marketplace," said George Sowers, an executive with ULA.

The joint venture's Atlas V and Delta IV heavy lift vehicles are proven, reliable and available right away when NASA begins purchasing non-governmental launch services to re-supply the International Space Station, perhaps as soon as 2010, Sowers said.

Sowers added that the company is far along in obtaining a human rating for the Atlas V launcher, which would then make it qualified to compete to haul astronauts to the space station.

Though I wonder who it is they think would issue a "human rating"? I wish that we could get rid of this misleading word.

What does "human rated" really mean? Does it mean that NASA might fly humans on your vehicle?
Is this an irrelevant term when it comes to those doing business outside of NASA?

It's a meaningless term even within NASA. It's whatever NASA says it means.

If ESAS crashes and is terminated, I predict the Senate and House would vote to continue flying the shuttle orbiter before they would agree to fund a light EELV (Atlas V/Delta IV) on orbit fuel depot architecture if it meant cancellation of STS and ISS.

That standing army represents a lot of jobs in key districts.

If ESAS crashes and is terminated, I predict the Senate and House would vote to continue flying the shuttle orbiter before they would agree to fund a light EELV (Atlas V/Delta IV) on orbit fuel depot architecture if it meant cancellation of STS and ISS.

That depends on when it happens. There is a point of no return, when the Shuttle can't be continued, because critical long-lead items are no longer available, and can't be made so without major new infrastructure and tooling investments (billions of dollars). Griffin is working hard to make sure that that point is reached as soon as possible.

> If ESAS crashes and is terminated, I predict the Senate and House would vote to continue flying the shuttle orbiter before they would agree to fund a light EELV (Atlas V/Delta IV) on orbit fuel depot architecture if it meant cancellation of STS and ISS.

That depends on when it happens. There is a point of no return, when the Shuttle can't be continued, because critical long-lead items are no longer available, and can't be made so without major new infrastructure and tooling investments (billions of dollars). Griffin is working hard to make sure that that point is reached as soon as possible.

True.

But if ESAS is perceived as being in trouble too soon then those Congress-critters who benefit from the standing army may well move to block Griffin's efforts, working with those shuttle-huggers who have survived.

Rand Simberg wrote:
"Griffin is working hard to make sure that that point is reached as soon as possible."

Hmm that's a very interesting point of view and I hope that you're right - you gave me something to think about there :)

Like I said on another site.

Shuttle/Station(the political creature(think the old picture of a '
Gerrymander'), not the physical 2SRB+Oriber+ET one necessairly) will survive. Better it survive metamorphed into ESAS that remain a torturously slowly dying stuck in LEO larvae.

My take on LM Man-Rating the Atlas V is that it will be man-rated when they say it is man-rated and mostly because they say it is man-rated.

Rand, I have developed a rock that makes any booster man-rated merely by its presence.

Do you think I should patent this mystic man-rating mineral?

PS, I have also been informed by my R&D department that this rock shows great promise as a tiger repellant!

Another Mike (not Griffin) writes:

Shuttle/Station(the political creature(think the old picture of a 'Gerrymander'), not the physical 2SRB+Oriber+ET one necessairly) will survive. Better it survive metamorphed into ESAS that remain a torturously slowly dying stuck in LEO larvae.

Yup. Exactly. And thus my very strong support for Mike Griffin.

Kill ESAS & fire Mike Griffin & demand dry-launched EELV as the one true way and I fear Bill Nelson and Kay Bailey Hutchinson (one donkey and one elephant) will find a way to keep orbiter flying after 2010. Long after 2010.

Does anyone think Rock Tumlinson will get a better reception from Barbara Mikulski than Mike Griffin does?

NASA/JSC is developing a process and Board whereby they will assess designs and bestow a "Human Rating Certification." This will be based on a revision to the NASA Human Rating requirements.
If you look at the stuff that Atlas is doing, you'll discover that they comply with the majority of NASA existing Human Rating requirements. Most of the requirements are the right thing to do. Others are based off of different experiences (STS vs Expendable). As such, the Atlas folks have alternative approaches that make sense. However, they seem to be making tangible progress towards the goal of commercial human spaceflight.
Anyone want to wager who gets there first... Ares 1 or Atlas V? And which one would YOU want to ride on?