The Space Review and the Space Show this week

"I just wish the administration had told Griffin when they first hired him that sustainability, not just getting from the Earth to the Moon by a given date, was the top priority for the VSE."

They did. Sustainability was at the forefront of the VSE; each of the architecture contractors knew and understood that and each addressed it in their own way. Griffin arrogantly chose to ignore this key requirement.

Posted by Gary C Hudson at 03/10/08 10:39:50

Gary, Clark,
I'm somewhat worried about the whole concept of sustainability. IMO, sustainability means finding a way to enable commercial space to the point that even if NASA were shutdown, exploration, settlement, and economic exploitation of space would continue. Unfortunately, I think in Mike's view of sustainability, Ares-I is sustainable, in that it will be politically very hard to kill. And it may very well be that relying on parochial interests is enough to keep the program going for a long time even if it isn't doing anything really meaningful.

I think John Marburger's point about the importance of making sure we spend NASA money in a way to "reduce the risks and costs of future operations" is a more useful yardstick to measure things by. By that yardstick, it is obvious that ESAS is a born failure.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at 03/10/08 13:23:06

Jon,

Going back to the "framers" arguments during the drafting of the VSE, you are certainly correct that "original intent" was for economic self-sustainability. That's certainly how pre-Griffin NASA interpreted it as well.

But a Griffin-centric view of Ares I sustainability that you offer is frightening and as the current parlance goes "...just wrong." ;) However, I hope that it is not so. As political realignments occur this election season, the Apollo Redux is already in trouble. The day any private human spaceflight capability exists for LEO, it is dead. We can hope it disappears before that, but I won't hold my breath.

Posted by Gary C Hudson at 03/10/08 15:52:31

Hi Jon, Gary,
I think Jon is probably right about Griffin's view of sustainability and I think Gary is correct that this view will be shown to be wrong when the next admin kills Ares V and probably kills Ares 1/Orion as well.

If, instead, there were, say, 4 or 5 viable COTS competitors building vehicles, Boeing was designing fuel depots, LM was designing big lunar vehicles based on a dry launch approach, etc, etc., there would, in fact, be just as much parochial support for the program but there would also be much more enthusiasm for it from a broader segment of the public.

Perhaps the newspace advocacy community should have a new plan/architecture/whatever based on a sustainable govt/commercial partnership ready to push for once Constellation gets whacked.

- C.

Posted by TopSpacer at 03/10/08 16:37:46

Gee, it kinda of makes wish for the good ool' days of O'Keefe. At least he didn't have a engineering design to sell NASA.

Shows that you should be careful what you wish for.

Posted by anon at 03/10/08 17:25:54

Gary says "They did. Sustainability was at the forefront of the VSE; each of the architecture contractors knew and understood that and each addressed it in their own way."

Anon says "Gee, it kinda of makes wish for the good ool' days of O'Keefe. At least he didn't have a engineering design to sell NASA."

I'm with both Gary and Anon. I attended many of the CE&R studies back when Adm. Steidle was AA/ESMD. Some real deep thinking about economic sustainability -- and what that really meant -- was presented by both small and large aerospace companies and organizations. Some of those presentations should be looked at by anyone with a real interest in economically sustainable space exploration and development.

But Project Constellation dropped the top-level constraint of sustainability, and subsequently embarked on what will be another "flags and footprints" legacy. SSDD, AFAIC.

Posted by Ben Muniz at 03/10/08 18:57:07

I posted both at TransT and Selenian-B but I might as well add my "0.2" credits here:

Folks it doesn't "matter" at all how we define 'sustainable' nor how NASA nor the aerospace companies, etc do so.

Sustainability, goals, finances, the whole ball of wax is decided and defined by Congress who are directly in charge of NASA. Period.

While the VSE spoke of various 'goals' as being required to be incorperated into NASAs future NONE of them were "priority" nor much more than suggestions as they came from the President and not Congress, so Congress can and does 'ignore' them in favor of what they want.

Griffen hasn't 'ignored' his marching orders since they come not from the White House but Capitol Hill. As much as Gary, Jon, etc have all complained about the ESAS chosen architecure it meshes directly into what CONGRESS wants from NASA which is far and away nothing like the sound-bytes from the VSE. Changes in the White House resident won't change the direction of NASA as evidenced by the lack of change given there has been a major shift in power in Congress which DOES directly effect NASA.

My personal opinion is that the ESAS/Aries architecture is a waste and while the Aries-I 'may' fly at some point that is about ALL we can expect to happen from the program since Congress is dead-set agains going to Mars let alone the Moon or even expanding manned presence in orbit.
(Given their 'druthers they would rather just keep flying the Shuttle till they all crash, but barring that they are 'just' looking for a replacment vehicle)

I'd 'suggest' that those organizing the "March-Storm" for Congress push the adoption of the DIRECT concept over the Aries and push the points that it will not only keep MORE of the workforce in place but also be able to become operational with the current NASA budget. (Both points high on Congress' list of wants for NASA)

However, this will require a great deal of 'reiging-in' on overt speculation on things like expanded roles for COTS and stirring visions of expanded LEO industry, return to the Moon or on to Mars speeches which will be exactly opposite of what Congress wants.

All the above may be what "WE" want but it is not what our "friends" in Congress want and they have made that abundantly 'clear' for anyone who has watched the various fits of start-stop/fund-defund activities that have been characteristic of NASA and aerospace programs in general.

The truth is "we" have no "friends" in Congress and the idea of expanding mankind into the solar system, colonization, resource exploitation or even the 'use' of space beyond a small, narrow range is not even a passing thought in the minds of those who control NASA.

We have to be VERY realistic in our views of what we can 'get' from Congress through NASA and always temper our enthusiasm for 'the-cause' with the thought that our most likely 'support' will be Congress allowing NASA to spend a small amount of public money towards 'encouraging' commercial space as long as that 'commercial' space does not look to over-shadow or (worse yet) begin to raise questions in the public mind on the financial and technelogical 'need' for a government space program run by Congress.

It may seem like a bleak outlook on things, but this is what I see from watching it all happen over the last 30+ years and I don't see any way around the fact that Congress can, has, and will defend 'their' territory if they have too.

The situation is far from hopeless thoug since Congress by its political nature, tends to be flexible as long as their 'needs' are tended too. We can expect that should an orbital fueling depot be made available that was compatable with NASA programs Congress would most likely 'allow' NASA to use the facility as they would 'allow' NASA to fly astronauts or payloads on commercial RLVs if they were available and cost 'them' nothing to develop and field.

What should be avoided with all effort is the idea though that NASA would be 'allowed' to develop any of the infrastructure for such things as the orbital fuel depot, L-x rendevous or some sort of building/repair/manufacturing facilities on-orbit, the Moon or even Mars since none of this is 'sale-able' to Congress. Their definition (and therefor NASAs) of 'sustainable' is vastly different than what it is taken to mean on the majority of blogs and by the majority of persons discussing space.

Ok, enough doom-gloom-and-omen reading, think I'll step out and get a breath of fresh air and look at the Moon, and hope the sight can stir my soul again.. at least one more time.

Randy

Posted by Randy Campbell at 03/10/08 19:52:52

Randy, while money comes via the Congress, the budget is proposed by the President (and in practice by negotiation between OMB and NASA). Congress was on board with the Steidle implementation of VSE. In reality, while Congress disposes, they also usually give the NASA Administrator most of what is asked for. The public-private partnership that Steidle was planning to implement would have essentially satisfied Congress' need to fill rice bowls while subtly providing the transition to an economics vs. budget based future in space.

Griffin's VSE panders to a few Congresspersons, but some of those are moving on.

Posted by Gary C Hudson at 03/10/08 20:57:15

Ben, is there any hope that those presentations you mentioned are available online in some format?

Posted by Rich at 03/11/08 09:08:44

Gary;

Thanks for the insight and explination however:
>Randy, while money comes via the
>Congress, the budget is proposed by
>the President (and in practice by
>negotiation between OMB and NASA).

I actually DO understand this "process" but the fact remains that Congress and Congress alone, (specifically the Sci-Tech commitee) has line-by-line, item-by-item control over the NASA budget along with the explicit "duty" of approval of all NASA programs and projects as well as over-all policy setting responisbility.

>Congress was on board with the
>Steidle implementation of VSE. In
>reality, while Congress disposes,
>they also usually give the NASA
>Administrator most of what is asked
>for. The public-private partnership
>that Steidle was planning to
>implement would have essentially
>satisfied Congress' need to fill rice
>bowls while subtly providing the
>transition to an economics vs. budget
>based future in space.

Other than sound-bytes from "supportive" Congressmen during the inital few weeks after VSE was announced the one thing to be noted is the distinct LACK of actual support from Congress on implimentation of the VSE. While it sound great that Admiral Steidle's "plan" would have moved space towards something more similar to economic driven rather than budget driven space, that would be exactly the opposite of what Congress would want or need. It would 'distinctly' NOT fill the Congressional rice bowls and the direction such a 'cooperation' would lead would in fact be seen to take money away from NASA (hence Congress) by replacment of public with private funds, which would not be under Congressional control.

>Griffin's VSE panders to a few
>Congresspersons, but some of those
>are moving on.

"Griffen's" VSE if he had "free-reign" would probably look something like a version of Mars Direct since that is his prefered scenerio. He would leave ISS supply and crew ferry to commercial operators, (he suggested as much in several papers) but he does NOT have that choice as Congress supports keeping NASA tasked with crew and resupply of the station and has therefor mandated that NASA get a "shuttle-replacement" flying before building a Heavy-Lift Vehicle which would be used to lift the rest of the ISS modules.

Since the 'vision' mandated NASA to finish the ISS and to 'support' it, which is something Congress supports THAT part of the Presidents proposal was embraced. Looking from the outside it seems to me that Griffen has tried to turn the Aries-1 into a development program for the 5-segment SRB that Aries-V will require in order to begin as much development as possible now since all signs indicate clearly that Congress proabablly won't let him go to the Moon, let alone Mars.

As to the concept that "some" of the Congress-folk are 'moving'on it is incorrect and really niave to assume that since we've had a major turn-over in Congress already and the attitude has not changed. I'm fairly sure that Congress can be 'flexible' if given enough incentive but until those 'incentives' are in place rather than assumed there won't be any reason for them to change (or even support) NASAs direction towards a more 'sustainable' architecture.

I personally hope that 'change' is coming to Congress, but I don't feel hopeful simply because what we are all wanting to see come about is almost impossible to sell politically and probably financially in the near future because of the political expenditure and well as financial outlay invested in the way things are now.

As I noted before we perhaps should "hope/pray/work" to get NASA/Congress to switch from the horrible Aries-1, (I have major doubts that Aries-V will ever see the light of day) in favor of the "Lesser-Evil" of the Direct architetcture. The fact that it would require much less infrastructure changes and therefor costs plus would keep more of the current work force and begin using them sooner would be a large "selling" point for Congress.

Randy

Posted by Randy Campbell at 03/11/08 09:21:19

Rich asks "is there any hope that those presentations you mentioned are available online in some format?"

These presentations used to be up at:
/http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/

But I cannot find the CE&R BAA briefings there now. A check of the Internet Archive doesn't turn them up, either.

Google turns up only:

http://exploration.nasa.gov...

&

http://wiki.developspace.ne...

A FOIA may be required.

Ben

Posted by Ben Muniz at 03/12/08 03:01:38

Randy Campbell writes "Sustainability, goals, finances, the whole ball of wax is decided and defined by Congress who are directly in charge of NASA. Period."

Imagine if this were the case for commercial aviation.

"The truth is "we" have no "friends" in Congress and the idea of expanding mankind into the solar system, colonization, resource exploitation or even the 'use' of space beyond a small, narrow range is not even a passing thought in the minds of those who control NASA."

I agree. Perhaps trying to change Congress and NASA is not the answer.

Ben

Posted by Ben Muniz at 03/12/08 03:07:40

Expect NASA to pave the way for commercial space development, building infrastructure, sustained presence. Sounds great but have we already forgotten what transpired since the Apollo program? NASA tried creating a space transportation system the shuttle, ISS, X-33, DCX etc.... thirty years of pouring money down a preverbal rat hole. NASA's manned space program is about “space exploration”, that's it. Thirty years of failed expectations should have taught this. SHOOT THE MOON or go home!

Posted by Doug at 03/12/08 19:46:53

Apollo Redux is already in trouble. The day any private human spaceflight capability exists for LEO, it is dead

Gary, I agree this is the way I see it playing out over the next 15 years. Private space takes over the LEO chores. Apollo redux is reduced to earth-moon deep space mission support until something better comes along, tugs, cyclers etc...

I see sustainability as sustaining outward exploration and the sense of going somewhere and getting something accomplished. I think NASA needs to get to the moon soon and generate some excitement and interest or there will be nothing to sustain. I think Griffin senses the same and knows time is of the essence.

I liked Newt's plan of moving outward in steps offering incentive prizes for milestones. However it’s too late to go back now and change what is already under development. Still a good idea for future hardware development.

Posted by Doug at 03/12/08 20:38:17

Ben, sorry about the delay, but thanks for trying

Posted by Rich at 03/16/08 14:05:19

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture: Remember Me