Category Archives: Political Commentary

Political Commentary, Space

A History Of Ares

20 Comments

You know, I can think of very few people in whose opinions I have less interest right now, with the possible exception of Mike Griffin, than Scott Horowitz. The sad thing is, he probably actually believes this:

To help address the safety and reliability issues, SAIC was commissioned to evaluate the potential hazards of the first stage solid and the overall reliability of the vehicle. The SAIC study (SAICNY05-04-1F) showed that a worst-case scenario of a catastrophic case burst of the first stage (extremely unlikely) would result in a maximum overpressure at the crew capsule of approzimately 1 psi. This overpressure is well within the design characteristics of the capsule. SAIC also conducted an initial Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) evaluation of the reliability of the launch vehicle and estimated a launch vehicle failure rate (LOV) of 1 in 483 and a loss of crew rate (LOC) of 1 in 3,145 at the mean of the estimated uncertainty distribution. Recent NASA PRA estimates for the current configuration predict a LOC of approximately 1 in 2,500. This compares to the LOC for Shuttle of 1 in 88.

“1 in 3,145”?

Really? Not “1 in 3,144” or “1 in 3,146”? And did they include all of the TBD gimcrackery that was going to be incorporated to keep the vehicle from shaking itself and Orion apart?

And how many centuries did he expect this vehicle, that would cost billions of dollars each flight, to fly in order to determine whether the genius rocket scientists at SAIC got the numbers right?

It would have a little more credibility if he had at least said one in three thousand (though not a lot), and not made the elementary first-year physics student’s mistake of overprecision.

But you don’t get safety by doing PRAs. If we learned anything from the Shuttle, we sure as hell should have learned that. You get safety from flying. A lot.

But the other thing that is disturbing are the requirements:

Do not compromise crew safety for cost, performance, or schedule

This requirement, taken to its logical conclusion, would keep us on the planet forever. Don’t compromise it for cost? OK, then it becomes unaffordable because we can’t compromise “safety.” Don’t compromise for performance? OK, then the job doesn’t get done. Don’t compromise for schedule? So when do we fly?

This was a system of the astronauts, by the astronauts, for the astronauts. Which says to me, we need a different kind of astronaut, one who takes their job, and its purpose, seriously.

Life, and engineering are compromises. If safety becomes the ultimate value, then you might as well stay in bed (assuming that someone doesn’t decide to pump poison into your bedroom, or a meteroid doesn’t come crashing through the roof). And the irony, of course (again, as we should have learned from the Shuttle) is that you don’t get safety by spending billions in the attempt. The only way to get some level of safety is to do something a lot, make mistakes, and learn from them. In fact, if Shuttle were still a fully-operational program, with new parts being produced, and a reasonable flight rate, it would be safer now than at any time in its history, because we learned a lot from Challenger and Columbia. But it’s not, and we can’t afford to fly it enough to make it truly safe.

The lesson here is that if you want safety, don’t avoid reusables — reuse them, a lot. But the nonsensical lesson that many (including the CAIB) seemed to take away from Columbia, in addition to unrealistic safety requirements, is that we should return to throwing away the vehicle so that each flight is a first flight, and then put a heavy, expensive escape system on it when it fails anyway.

People with such an attitude are fundamentally unserious about space. The unwillingness to risk the lives of astronauts says that what we are trying to accomplish in space is unimportant. As long as that is the case, it will remain unaffordable, and we will accomplish little. Today’s announcement is, I hope a first step toward a more sane, and realistic approach to human spaceflight.

Business, Economics, Political Commentary, Space, War Commentary

First Look

82 Comments

Jeff Foust (who also has a summary of the current political state of play over at The Space Review today) has some initial budget numbers:

That building block approach includes heavy-lift launch vehicle R&D, “vigorous” technology development work in areas like automated rendezvous and docking and propellant transfer, and a “steady stream of precursor robotic exploration missions”.

For those who foolishly think that this new direction is the “end of human spaceflight” or even “the end of human spaceflight beyond LEO,” what do they think that those precursors are for? Not to mention the tech development work?

I guess, to them, that if you’re not repeating the folly of Apollo, you’re not doing “real” human spaceflight.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here’s the OMB document (doesn’t look like a permalink, though):

NASA’s Constellation program – based largely on existing technologies – was based on a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020. However, the program was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies. Using a broad range of criteria an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA’s program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era, 50 years later, was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives. Furthermore, NASA’s attempts to pursue its moon goals, while inadequate to that task, had drawn funding away from other NASA programs, including robotic space exploration, science, and Earth observations. The President’s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration.

Killing off a dead end and reinvesting in something that actually has a hope of achieving the goals. Gosh, what a concept.

One thing that’s not clear yet, absent more perusal. When they say cancel Constellation, does that include Orion? Not that I’d cry, but I’m curious. Orion’s requirements, after all, are integral with the Constellation architecture, which is clearly dead now, so the program will need some rethinking regardless.

And is this just the opening position in a budget battle with Congress, with it and perhaps some kind of heavy lifter as bargaining chips?

[Update a few minutes later]

Bobby Block has more analysis over at The Write Stuff:

The flagship enterprise will be developing on-orbit refueling and automated approaches and docking technologies.

…Lots of parallels are being drawn with how the federal government used mail contracts to develop the aviation industry.

So far, I’m liking pretty much everything I’m seeing.

[Update mid morning PST]

Clark Lindsey has some notes from the announcement. This is a huge breath of fresh air, at least so far. Which is not to say it’s perfect, but it can be a long way from that and still a huge improvement over the previous plans.

[Update a couple minutes later]

A summary from George Herbert, over at the Arocket list:

Well, it’s out. As predicted, wth some additional benefits.

Constellation outright cancelled, message from the top on down.

$2.5 B of the new $6 B funding over 5 years (beyond flat) is in Earth Observation science missions. Major (claimed) focus on technologies for affordable long term human exploration of the solar system, including orbital demonstrations of propellant tank farm and orbital propellant transfers, automated rendezvous and docking (presumably, of human-sized vehicles, and vehicles far from earth), closed loop ECLSS, a new first stage booster engine (presumably big enough for a HLV), I think I saw mention of deep space propulsion. [all of the things that Mike Griffin starved to feed Apollo on Steroids — rs]

They’re explicitly stepping away from a roadmap, and onto the technology base that most of us long term experienced enthusiasts have been pushing for.

If I had to summarize my first impressions, especially of Bolden’s statement –

“We were doing Flags and Footprints. The President and I don’t want to do that. We want to colonize space for real. We’re going to do the foundations for that now.”

I assume that last is a summary of Bolden’s statement, not a quote.

Whether or not they follow through, this is (IMNSHO) the most visionary space policy that the nation has ever had. Now to see how badly Congress screws it up.

[Another update]

The thing that amazes me is that when I read comments from those defending Ares, and Constellation, and NASA, at places like Space Politics and The Write Stuff, is that they are entirely devoid of facts and logic. These people live in some bizarre alternate reality in which NASA didn’t kill fourteen astronauts at the cost of hundred of billions of dollars, Lockheed Martin has ever sent someone into space, SpaceX has achieved nothing, etc. In Senator Shelby’s case, I can understand that he is completely motivated to lie or delude himself about such things by what he perceives to be his political interest, but I can’t figure out what drives the irrationality of others with no dog in the fight except apparent blind NASA worship.

[Update a few minutes later]

I have some more thoughts on Ares, astronauts and safety.

And if you missed my post on Obama’s conservative (even if inadvertent) space policy, it’s here.

[Update a few minutes later]

If your only template for a “successful” human spaceflight program is Apollo (big rocket, firm deadline, big bucks, a few NASA astronauts walking on some planet), then I can see why you’d be disappointed when instead the program is for enabling lots of destinations, by lots of people, with no specific deadline or destination. These are the same people who would apparently say that Lewis and Clark was “real exploration of the west,” and all those miners and trappers wandering around were just hobbyists. And that the government should have built its own heavy-lift railroad instead of giving land grants.

[Afternoon update]

Buzz likes it. No one would know the folly of repeating Apollo better than him.

[Update a while later]

More thoughts from Michael Mealing.

[Update a few minutes later]

With regard to the knee-jerk irrational complaints from many, this reminds me very much of six years ago, when the Vision for Space Exploration was announced. Many “progressive” and pro-space bloggers opposed it, even though they admitted to liking the idea. Why? Because it was proposed by the BusHitler, so there was obviously a catch, and he was up to no good. I’m seeing a lot of the same kind of partisan nonsense in opposition to this. This is the most truly visionary space policy ever (and that includes the Apollo speech), yet a lot of people are cavilling about it because it was proposed by Barack Obama. This is stupid.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Civilization

1 Comment

Nice catch by Aram Bakshian, Jr.:

We are reminded by Mr. Young that one of Mr. Edwards’s early boosters was the late Ted Kennedy, who “saw almost unlimited potential in this young, energetic, well-spoken, good-looking Southerner.” In a conversation with Mr. Young, Mr. Kennedy waxed sentimental about Washington in the early 1960s: “It used to be civilized. The media was on our side. We’d get our work done by one o’clock and by two we were at the White House chasing women. We got the job done, and the reporters focused on the issues. . . . It was civilized.” We now know that Mr. Edwards’s idea of civilization was much the same as Kennedy’s.

No other comment necessary, I think. Ah, for the good old days when the “media was on their side.”

Oh, wait! Maybe he meant the good old days in 2008.

Political Commentary, Space

Dramatic Changes Ahead

10 Comments

I have more thoughts on anniversaries, and the new space policy, over at PJM.

[Update a few minutes later]

I would make one other point. If we’ve lost the moon, it happened five years ago when Mike Griffin came out with the ESAS results. Constellation was never going to get us back to the moon, in any affordable or sustainable way. As I noted in the previous post, the new policy is much more in keeping with the recommendations of the Aldridge Commission than Mike Griffin’s plans ever were.

[Update a few minutes later]

Jeff Foust says that it’s silly season in space policy.

As he says, we could wait until Monday to see what the policy actually is before fulminating about it, but where’s the fun in that?

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space

Obama’s Conservative Space Policy

56 Comments

[Note: KLo offered me some space at The Corner to rebut Jeffrey Anderson’s post, but it hasn’t gone up yet and I’m not sure when it will. But since it’s just a blog post, and not a paid NRO article, I assume there’s no problem with cross posting here.]

While I’m not a conservative, some of my best friends are, and I am sympathetic to that philosophy, so it pains me to see such an inadvertently unconservative post on space policy appear in The Corner from Jeffrey Anderson. I responded briefly at my blog, but I’m grateful to Kathryn to allow me some space there for a more proper rebuttal.

Short version, human spaceflight policy is one of the few things that Obama seems to be getting right, at least from a conservative standpoint.

Longer version: Continue reading Obama’s Conservative Space Policy →

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space

We Haven’t Lost The Moon

32 Comments

Over at National Review, Jeffrey Anderson (of whom I’d never before heard) is bewailing the new space policy, saying that Barack Obama is “no JFK.”

It’s been ten more years of going nowhere since Krauthammer wrote these words. Obama now proposes another ten to come.

As Krauthammer has rightly noted elsewhere, the most dangerous part of space exploration is leaving and entering the Earth’s atmosphere. The most interesting and exciting part is getting as far away as possible. So, what does President Obama propose? That we stay close to home.

That is simply untrue, at least if we are to believe rumors about Monday’s announcement. Saying that we don’t have a specific policy to go back to the moon on a specific date is not equivalent to “staying close to home.”

Sadly, many people continue to equate whatever NASA’s plans are with progress in space, and if they’re changed, or not fully funded, the assumption is that we are abandoning human spaceflight. But in fact, we’ve made little progress over the past few decades with NASA’s plans, and were going nowhere fast with the Program of Record that is mercifully, for both taxpayers and space (as opposed to NASA center) enthusiasts, about to be euthanized. Space policy is one of the few areas in which the administration seems to be getting it right, and it’s both ironic and sad that people who fancy themselves defenders of small government are also defenders of a bloated, expensive, and ineffective government program, for no other reasons than nostalgia for a Cold-War victory and a dead Democrat president.

[Update a few minutes later]

Another myth:

Furthermore, at a time when the president claims his focus is on jobs, scrapping these programs — on which we’ve already spent nearly $10 billion — would cut public spending in one area that actually creates jobs.

Of course it creates “jobs” when the government pours money into a make-work project. The question is, does it create or destroy wealth? Again, he’s making an argument that I’ll bet he’d deride as economically bogus if it were about hiking trails, or high-speed rail. And how many jobs are destroyed because the money being spent on NASA isn’t being applied to something more productive and desirable (particularly on productive and desirable things in space)?

[Late afternoon update]

For Instapundit readers, I have a follow-up post on this subject, which I hope will be cross posted at NRO soon, or at least this weekend.

[Monday morning update]

For those who came over here from NRO, I’ve extended and expanded on that Corner post here.

Political Commentary, Space

The Rebels Strike Back

31 Comments

According to this piece at Popular Mechanics, the new regime at NASA seems to be well disposed to DIRECT.

I remain an indifferent agnostic, because I think that any money spent on a heavy lifter is money wasted that would be better directed toward orbital infrastructure. And the big question that I have is how such a vehicle would be “commercial,” since there are few non-government customers for it.