The comments at Space Politics continue. And (unsurprisingly) Mark Whittington continues to look foolish, because he doesn't understand either the technology or the politics:

“The problem with the analysis presented by “Anonymous” is that it’s opinion that doesn’t seem to be buttressed by any evidence.”

I guess I’m a little disappointed that stayed up late last night writing nine pages worth of arguments, each dense with evidence, only to get this response. I hope Mr. Whittington at least appreciates the effort.

But maybe it was my own verbosity that did me in. I’ll try to boil it down:

FACT: ESAS included no sensitivity analysis, had very limited optimization analysis, completely missed important hardware combinations (like the option developed in DIRECT 2), and ignored important criteria regarding national goals, competition, and international cooperation. One only has to read the publicly available ESAS report in some depth to see that the ESAS analysis is missing these important elements.

FACT: Contrary to ESAS, industry papers (LockMart/Bigelow) show that EELVs can fly human capsules on depressed trajectories without blackout periods and can be human-rated without Shuttle-type processes and costs (as is planned for the COTS vehicles). ESAS also treated safety figures for unflown and substantially altered Shuttle “heritage” components as if they were flight-proven systems. One only has to obtain copies of these papers from the AIAA and read them and the ESAS report in some depth to see that ESAS employed bad data on several occasions.

FACT: Just to get Ares 1/Orion started, Griffin had to cut billions in ISS research, Prometheus nuclear systems development, and other human space flight technology research. One only has to read the first or second operating plan that NASA sent to Congress under Griffin to see that Ares 1/Orion blew the VSE budget from the get-go, adding enormous and unnecessary risk to the human lunar return effort.

FACT: Ares 1 is underpowered and Orion must use its own motor as a third-stage to reach orbit. For ISS missions, Ares 1/Orion has no design/development margin left. According to Horowitz’s own press presentation available on the web, all the remaining margin is performance margin. It’s hard to imagine, contrary to the history of aerospace project development, that Ares 1 and/or Orion will avoid further problems and not eat into that performance margin. At what point the performance margin becomes too thin and a major, time-consuming, and expensive design change is necessary to avoid impacting mission reliability and crew safety is hard to predict, but it’s highly probable given how much of the development of these systems still lies in front of the program.

FACT: To keep from totally blowing the schedule for Ares 1/Orion, Griffin has had to cut billions from the NASA science budget and nearly halve the aeronautics budget. These cuts are reducing the annual flight rate for new science missions from a 7 to 9 per annum to 2 per annum. The cuts have also halved key VSE research grant programs, halved the number of Mars missions, and completely eliminated future missions to address other key VSE targets (extrasolar planets, outer moons) or in other space science disciplines (high-energy astrophysics). I won’t even get into the Earth science and aeronautics impacts. One only has to compare Griffin’s budget proposals and operating plans on the NASA CFO website and read the Congressional testimony of various National Academy chairs to tally these cuts and their impacts.

FACT: Despite all the billions thrown at the ESAS implementation plan, no significant work will begin on any actual human lunar exploration elements (such as Ares V and LSAM) until the second half of the Presidency that will follow the George W. Bush White House. One only has to read Griffin’s budget proposals on the NASA CFO website and his Congressional testimony to see that Griffin’s chosen LEO capability has pushed the decision on whether to return humans to the Moon well past the next election, putting the “E” in “VSE” at great political risk.

FACT: Despite all the billions thrown at Ares 1 and Orion, the post-Shuttle human space flight gap — suppossedly Griffin’s top priority since day one as NASA Administrator — has more than doubled to five years in the span of just two years under his leadership (from 2010-2012 when Griffin started to 2010-2015 today). And, given that NASA must get Congress to pass a highly unlikely seven percent increase in the FY08 budget just to keep this schedule, the gap is very likely to grow by at least another year to two (from 2010-2015 today to 2010-2016 or 2017 a year from now). One only has to read Griffin’s budget proposals on the NASA CFO website and his Congressional testimony to see that Griffin has been unwilling or unable to make adjustments in order execute even his topmost priority with any effectiveness.

“There are people who will state the exact opposite (and under their own names). It’s a little bit tiresome to have to witness, once again, the Internet rumor.”

Let’s be very clear. Unlike Mr. Whittington’s unsubstantiated reference to “people that will state the exact opposite”, I’m NOT referencing internet rumors, hearsay from my day job, or documents that I have access to but that are not publicly available. I’m referencing publicly available documents that anyone can read on a NASA or Congressional website or by making a request to the AIAA.

I’d also remind Mr. Whittington that the forum administrator welcomes anonymous comments and frowns on criticizing such comments simply because they are anonymous.

“that VSE is “on the verge of collapse” only to see it proven wrong again.”

FWIW, I really do hope the VSE is salvaged is some form, either under Griffin (and I would give him kudos for doing so) or after him. But the VSE is not ESAS, and I think it’s going to take the major change in direction away from ESAS to save the VSE.

My 2 cents…

[Note: with apologies to Jeff Foust--I hope that this falls within fair use, particularly since it's just a comment from his invaluable site, to which I've linked, and I think that it needs wider distribution.]

Also, this is the kind of stuff I'd be posting if I had more time (and info) but even if I did, I can't imagine bettering it. "Anonymous" should get his own blog, but then it would be a lot harder to stay "anonymous."

And again, just another instance of an "anonymous" not (necessarily) being a moron, unlike many of the "anonymous" creatures with which I have to deal in comments here.

And (unsurprisingly) Mark Whittington continues to look foolish, because he doesn't understand either the technology or the politics

It's really the same mentality as in the war in Iraq. Griffin is "winning", but victory is still "fragile". Defeatism is unpatriotic. In the end, NASA will prevail.

I think that the unnamed poster here says it all. Iraq is Vietnam. ESAS (VSE) is the shuttle. Or ISS. Or X-33. Or take you pick. I suspect that the latter would be the case no matter what prefered hardware would have been chosen.

As for my "understanding" of technology and politics, I will conceed the former. I can just evaluate what I read and there are different opinions. The burden of proof it seems to me are upon those who claim that the current approach is, as Rand put it, "a slow moving train wreck." So far there is no evidence to suggest that it is, aside from dueling experts and discredited rumor.

As for the politics, we will only see. So far most of the major players in Congress and industry are in favor of bringing the funding up to the authorized leval.

I will also remind anyone who confidently predicts that VSE is doomed to collapse, a lot of people (including myself) predicted the same thing for the space station, which was certainly in a lot more trouble than anyone even imagines VSE to be. But it did not and, I suspect, even if the critics somehow are proven right, VSE will survive in pretty much its current form.

So, Mark, which of the FACTS are you disputing? He makes a pretty compelling case. We're still awaiting something resembling a rebuttal, rather than simply wishful thinking on your part.

None of those are facts, they are merely opinions, negative destructive opinions at that.

By the way, Rand, since you choose to extensively quote "Anonymous", I'll quote a gentleman calling himself Tom who addressed his points far better than I.

anonymous, since Mark doesn’t want to take your points one at a time, I will:
FACT: ESAS included no sensitivity analysis, had very limited optimization analysis, completely missed important hardware combinations (like the option developed in DIRECT 2), and ignored important criteria regarding national goals, competition, and international cooperation. One only has to read the publicly available ESAS report in some depth to see that the ESAS analysis is missing these important elements.

FACT: sensitivity and optimization analysis are like statistics–they are only as good as the input data and assumptions made. Excellent tool for small-scale physical analysis. Largely worthless for “architecture” level conceptual studies. Their inclusion or exclusion in the report doesn’t say whether or not they were done, and plenty of large scale projects have passed these semi-fantasy based ‘tests’ only to crater in the real world.

FACT: Contrary to ESAS, industry papers (LockMart/Bigelow) show that EELVs can fly human capsules on depressed trajectories without blackout periods and can be human-rated without Shuttle-type processes and costs (as is planned for the COTS vehicles). ESAS also treated safety figures for unflown and substantially altered Shuttle “heritage” components as if they were flight-proven systems. One only has to obtain copies of these papers from the AIAA and read them and the ESAS report in some depth to see that ESAS employed bad data on several occasions.

I believe this point is somewhat valid, but not exactly damning of Griffen, and certainly not evidence of gross incompetence. The beaureacracy always gets its jabs in one way or the other. Either way, the lack of an EELV existence proof doesn’t exactly refute the NASA point.

FACT: Just to get Ares 1/Orion started, Griffin had to cut billions in ISS research, Prometheus nuclear systems development, and other human space flight technology research. One only has to read the first or second operating plan that NASA sent to Congress under Griffin to see that Ares 1/Orion blew the VSE budget from the get-go,

all true, no disagreements to this point. You stated a fact, and then…
adding enormous and unnecessary risk to the human lunar return effort.
oops, no fact here anonymous, this is your opinion which bears no relation to the “FACT” you stated.

FACT: Ares 1 is underpowered and Orion must use its own motor as a third-stage to reach orbit. For ISS missions, Ares 1/Orion has no design/development margin left. According to Horowitz’s own press presentation available on the web, all the remaining margin is performance margin. It’s hard to imagine, contrary to the history of aerospace project development, that Ares 1 and/or Orion will avoid further problems and not eat into that performance margin.

I have the same presentation on SpaceRef, I don’t see where you’re getting that. Even if it’s in there, and I just can’t find it, I’m trying to understand how the pre-planned “design margin” being mostly eaten up during the process of DESIGN is a “failure”…that’s the purpose of design margin.

At what point the performance margin becomes too thin and a major, time-consuming, and expensive design change is necessary to avoid impacting mission reliability and crew safety is hard to predict, but it’s highly probable given how much of the development of these systems still lies in front of the program.
ok…once again, stop putting these into you “FACT” catagory. maybe you should label this “SPECULATION:”

FACT: To keep from totally blowing the schedule for Ares 1/Orion, Griffin has had to cut billions from the NASA science budget and nearly halve the aeronautics budget. These cuts are reducing the annual flight rate for new science missions from a 7 to 9 per annum to 2 per annum. The cuts have also halved key VSE research grant programs, halved the number of Mars missions, and completely eliminated future missions to address other key VSE targets (extrasolar planets, outer moons) or in other space science disciplines (high-energy astrophysics). I won’t even get into the Earth science and aeronautics impacts. One only has to compare Griffin’s budget proposals and operating plans on the NASA CFO website and read the Congressional testimony of various National Academy chairs to tally these cuts and their impacts.
All thankfully true. AND YET, YOU SEE THIS THIS AS A NEGATIVE? The administrator of a major federal agency for once has the balls to focus the agency budget on actual goal accomplishment instead of spreading the dough around, and all people do is complain.

FACT: Despite all the billions thrown at the ESAS implementation plan, no significant work will begin on any actual human lunar exploration elements (such as Ares V and LSAM) until the second half of the Presidency that will follow the George W. Bush White House. One only has to read Griffin’s budget proposals on the NASA CFO website and his Congressional testimony to see that Griffin’s chosen LEO capability has pushed the decision on whether to return humans to the Moon well past the next election, putting the “E” in “VSE” at great political risk.

This is true, but rests on a couple of unalterable realities: 1. have to finish ISS 2. shuttle fixed costs until retirement 3. limited budgeting flexibility. 4. No support for a big increase. I don’t care what fantasy plan you come up with, unless it’s essentially free, there’s no way to start work on it until ISS is done and shuttle retired.

FACT: Despite all the billions thrown at Ares 1 and Orion, the post-Shuttle human space flight gap — suppossedly Griffin’s top priority since day one as NASA Administrator — has more than doubled to five years in the span of just two years under his leadership (from 2010-2012 when Griffin started to 2010-2015 today).

Ahh, at last, red meat for the masses! Come on, anonymous. I suppose the effective cut in NASA’s budget for ‘07 is Griffen’s fault? If only the NASA administrator was smarter, NASA would have been the ONLY part of the government to get an increase in funding after the Democrats took over the Congress? Dream on.

And, given that NASA must get Congress to pass a highly unlikely seven percent increase in the FY08 budget just to keep this schedule, the gap is very likely to grow by at least another year to two (from 2010-2015 today to 2010-2016 or 2017 a year from now). One only has to read Griffin’s budget proposals on the NASA CFO website and his Congressional testimony to see that Griffin has been unwilling or unable to make adjustments in order execute even his topmost priority with any effectiveness.
This is incredibly rich. After complaining about how Griffin slashed all the other parts of the NASA budget to pay for ESAS, here you complain that Griffin has been unwilling to make adjustments. Contradiction? No, I’m sure you’re answer is just that ESAS costs too much period, and it all comes down to that…I still fail to see how you have proved that DIRECT or EELV PHASTASY program or Gary Hudson Super Bunny SSTO, or whatever your favorite pet project is, could procede without the funding bulge that is currently going to ESAS, leaving _____(insert your favorite alternative here)___ in the same position as ESAS.

On the subject of anonymous posters far and wide:

Why can't they at least chose a handle like Sad Kitten' or 'Fluffy Bunny'?

They are still anonymous but at least we can tell them apart. It is hard keeping 50 anonymous or blank posting sobs apart.

Hell, even just a number. I ain't asking for demographic info here.

Gee, Mark, thanks for cut'n'pasting from Jeff's site and not even making it possible to know who is writing what (you know, there is this thing called at least "quote marks," if not actual HTML, to distinguish who said what).

In any event, for those still following the discussion over there, "anonymous" shreds "Tom"s arguments, and once again, Mark looks foolish.

I still fail to see how you have proved that DIRECT or EELV PHASTASY program

Mark, do you and Oler share the same keyboard???

EELV is not a "PHASTASY" (sic). The "PHASTASY" is your belief that Stick booster is somehow more real than EELV.

You still haven't produced a single fact or figure to support your arguments.

Sure, you can dismiss any engineering analysis as being "only as good as the input data and assumptions made."

So, where is your analysis to show the flaws in Rand's input data and assumptions (and everyone else's)? Or are we just supposed to believe they're flawed because you want to believe so?

If you and Tom think you can simply handwaive away the need for engineering analyses, based on alleged flaws in input data and assumptions that you haven't even examined, what do you propose to put in its place? Argument by authority? Gut feeling? Masculine intuition? Political afilliation? Ouiji boards?

That's a hell of a way to run an engineering progam, Mark.

A direct question for Mark Whittington:

If you want the US government to spend hundreds of billions on space, why is it better to spend that money on another Apollo program rather than helping develop the capability to cheaply, routinely use space for commercial, military, and scientific purposes?

Crickets still chirping, Mark.

Mark missed debunking another one of these "facts"; that Ares I is underpowered and Orion needs a third stage to reach orbit. In that case Shuttle, Soyuz, Pegasus, Minotaur etc etc must all be underpowered too as they use three or more stages to reach orbit. Staging is the only way right now to reach orbit. Orion has a service module and engine for orbital adjustments and return from the moon, so it makes absolute sense to use that stage mass for the final orbital insertion as well.

Mike Puckett wrote:
"Why can't they at least cho[o]se a handle like Sad Kitten' or 'Fluffy Bunny'?"

Just as long as they leave 'Habitat Hermit' alone... ^_^

But yeah it's been crossing my mind too, perhaps Rand should make filling in a (nick)name obligatory?

As for the topic Rand (and Jeff Foust and Jonathan Goff and the multitude of others arguing against the current Nasa boondoggle) are correct and I suspect many over at Nasa agree as well - it's a rather massive and one-sided debate against Nasa's current plans. Makes me wonder if Nasa employees have sufficient whistle-blower protection.

Unless Ares is scrapped in favour of Direct v2 I believe COTS will beat Ares to the ISS and Bigelow Aerospace will beat Nasa back to the moon. In many ways a win-win situation as far as I'm concerned (except for the Nasa waste).

As for Dr. Griffin I don't think anyone understands what he's actually thinking any more, at least I don't, perhaps that includes Dr. Griffin too...

Staging is the only way right now to reach orbit. Orion has a service module and engine for orbital adjustments and return from the moon, so it makes absolute sense to use that stage mass for the final orbital insertion as well.

Actually, it's not. The early Atlas was very close to single stage, and we could almost certainly do one now, as long as we don't try to reuse it. It wouldn't necessarily be the most efficient or cost effective, but it could be done.

But this argument is a red herring, and a justification after the fact. It was, of course, always planned to stage (that's why Ares is a two-stage launch vehicle). The problem is that it has now evolved into a three-stage launch vehicle. The original requirement for Ares 1 was that it deliver the Orion to orbit with no aid from the Orion. The fact that they've had to back off on this requirement, and get help from the SM to make it, is indeed a symptom of apparent underperformance of the vehicle. So, sorry, but your "debunking" is debunked.

Rand, If you don't want to attract retarded anonymous trolls, moderate your blog and start becoming a little more trigger happy with your htaccess file.

It also wouldn't hurt to keep your content more "transterrestrial" and less "Rush Limbaugh".

Why did they choose the name Orion, anyway? Was it to obscure any memory of the real Orion programme?

We could have had colonies on Saturn's moons by now. Maybe, somewhere in an alternate universe...

Fletcher Christian wrote: "Why did they choose the name Orion, anyway?"

They may have been reminiscing about what might have been and took the names from 2001: A Space Odyssey. If so, this was rather unfortunate because Orion was the Earth-to-orbit vehicle and Aries (Ares!) the Earth-Moon shuttle, which is the opposite of today's architecture.