Category Archives: Space

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Space

The Last Public Meeting

15 Comments

…of the Augustine panel was today. Clark Lindsey has been keeping an eye on it.

[Update mid afternoon, Pacific time]

I don’t know what Bill White means in comments when he says that Jeff Greason “blew up the meeting,” but there is an old concept from the military (and later from the computer industry) called FUBAR: Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition (though some think that the first word may actually be something else…).

That’s a fair description of the US human spaceflight program, and has been, really, since the end of Apollo, if not before, at least in terms of being effective at getting humans into space in reasonable numbers. My New Atlantis essay was a long-winded way of saying that, with some recommendations for fixing it, which are probably politically unfeasible. But that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be pointed out.

[Update a few minutes later]

Bobby Block has a real-time report over at the Orlando Sentinel:

“We are on a path right now for a system on a close order of just double the budget to operate,” said panel member Jeff Greason of Constellation, which stemmed from President George W. Bush’s 2005 “vision” to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and then move on to Mars.

Greason added that if Santa Claus gave the program to the country fully developed, NASA would still have to cancel it because the agency could not afford to launch it.

Greason and former astronaut Sally Ride later questioned the utility of the Ares I rocket, which was supposed to launch humans to the international space station by 2015 but which now won’t be ready until well after the station is deorbited in 2016, as NASA currently plans.

Constellation has spent more than $3 billion in the past four years. And while the panel stopped short of recommending that the program be killed, it wasn’t immediately clear what financial solution it might suggest.

Presumably, they’re assuming that the administration is smart enough to draw their own conclusions…

[Update a few minutes later]

Clark has a late update:

Some discussion items that stand out include:
/– Agreed that splashing the ISS in 2015 is not realistic so all program options that include it will be eliminated.
/– The program of record (i.e. Ares I/V/Orion/Altair), which exceeds the expected budget substantially, will no longer be in the options table but kept separately just as a reference.
/– There will be two options that fit the expected budget. Others will assume growth up to $3B more than current annual budget.
/– A lengthy discussion of the Mars First option seems to have led to its removal. Instead the Lunar and Deep Space options will be presented as preparing the technology and in-space infrastructure for Mars missions later. The current baseline is far too expensive and any other scenario would involve too much sci-fi.

Emphasis mine. Bye bye, Constellation.

Here’s the chart of all the options being evaluated. There is no obvious weighting of the criteria, but to first order, all of the options seem to suck. There are a lot more negative numbers than positive ones. None of them are scored as sustainable. It really is an unsolvable Rubik’s cube. I don’t envy the panel members. Or the new NASA administration.

[Late evening update]

Commenters indicate that the numbers in the chart are changing in real time. As I noted above, I don’t envy the panel, or the new administrator and his deputy who have to implement whatever comes out of this process.

Political Commentary, Science And Society, Space, Technology and Society

Asteroid Impact Craters

5 Comments

Some great pictures from space, which is the best place from which to see them.

But we still don’t seem to be taking the problem seriously:

NASA is charged with seeking out nearly all the asteroids that threaten Earth but doesn’t have the money to do the job, a federal report says.

That’s because even though Congress assigned the space agency this mission four years ago, it never gave NASA money to build the necessary telescopes, the new National Academy of Sciences report says.

Because space isn’t important. Even when it is.

Political Commentary, Space

How The VSE Was Derailed

21 Comments

Paul Spudis has a tale of two visions. It’s pretty clear that (as I pointed out in my New Atlantis piece) if the administration had been serious about the VSE, they shouldn’t have given it to NASA as the lead:

Just as war is too important to be left to the generals, man’s future in space is too important to be left to NASA. After President Reagan proposed the creation of a national missile defense system in 1983, it became clear that the U.S. Air Force was not properly organized or motivated—and so a new agency was created to pursue the president’s vision. The new agency, today called the Missile Defense Agency, was very innovative and made great progress because it could focus on its one goal. Along those lines, the Bush administration might have done well to establish an Office of Space Development (with “exploration” being merely a means to an end) that could draw on other federal resources—not just NASA, but the Departments of Defense and Energy—as well as the private sector.

I don’t understand why Mike Griffin was given so much freedom to pervert it by the White House, and if Marburger didn’t complain, or if his complaints were ignored. Unfortunately, as I note throughout the piece, space isn’t important, and once the administration had a new plan and new administrator, they seem to have pretty much ignored it.

[Wednesday morning update]

There’s an interesting discussion on the topic going on in comments between Paul, Frank Sietzen and others over at NASA Watch. I’m inferring from it that Marburger was pretty marginalized within the White House, which would seem to correlate well with an external view of events since the VSE was announced.

[Bumped]

Science And Society, Space, Technology and Society

Geoengineering

10 Comments

Could “cloud ships” solve the problem (assuming that there is a problem) with “global warming”?

I do find this both amusing and frustrating, though:

The Copenhagen Consensus Centre, which advises governments on how to spend aid money, examined the various plans and found the cloud ships to be the most cost-effective.

They would cost $9 billion (£5.3 billion) to test and launch within 25 years, compared to the $250 billion that the world’s leading nations are considering spending each year to cut CO2 emissions, and the $395 trillion it would cost to launch mirrors into space.

That’s an absolutely insane (and economically and technologically ignorant) number for the latter. The only way to get it is to assume that a) the mirrors are very massive, b) they are made entirely out of terrestrial materials and c) that launch costs would not be reduced in any way by launching that much mass. I’m not saying that “space mirrors” are the most cost effective solution, but I’d like to see their basis of estimate, because that number is nuts.

Business, Political Commentary, Social Commentary, Space

Yes, And No

14 Comments

Some people in comments there think that Keith Cowing is making too big a deal of NASA’s inability to keep up with who does and doesn’t work for it, and even who still remains on the preferred side of the dirt.

I agree that, in itself, it is a pretty trivial issue, in the context of the much bigger problems at the agency, and it’s certainly one that most people don’t do well with, or many bureaucracies. But I’ll bet that there are some organizations that get this kind of thing right, because they have an organizational culture to get everything they do right. This isn’t, after all (to use the hackneyed and inaccurate expression) rocket science. If NASA can’t do something as basic as this, why should we trust it with billions of taxpayers’ dollars to build manned launch systems? Particularly when, even if they meet their own program goals, they will have such trivial capabilities (a few people to space a few times a year)? And if NASA can’t do something as basic as this, it might be for the same reasons that they have trouble developing new cost-effective launch systems.

Anyway, the evidence so far indicates that we shouldn’t trust them to do so.

Political Commentary, Space, Technology and Society

Restoring NIAC?

4 Comments

One of the stupidest and most criminal results of Constellation’s crowding out the rest of the NASA budget was the dismantling of the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts two years ago. It was only costing a few million dollars a year, and that trivial amount of money, which was providing tremendous bang for the NASA buck, was taken to be poured down the multi-billion-dollar Ares rat hole. Now, apparently, there’s talk of resurrecting it. That would be a small, but vital step in getting the agency back on the right track, if the new administrator follows the advice.