A Congressman and an Astronaut Propose a New Plan For NASA

MarkWhittington writes "Reflecting a rising discontent with the state of the U.S. space program in the wake of the last space shuttle mission, Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, and Apollo astronaut Walt Cunningham have proposed a new space plan that addresses space exploration, the role of commercial space, and reform of NASA."

Comments

Wait, these are not MY corporations

[FatLittleMonkey]

FTFA: "Instead, NASA was directed to pursue a riskier course, diverting billions of dollars to a group of companies– most devoid of experience in manned space vehicles"

Ah, Republicans, all for market solutions, as long as the money goes to the your preferred part of the market.
(Even better, they're blaming Obama for wasting $9b on the ridiculous Constellation.)

Re:Wait, these are not MY corporations

[TheRaven64]

I suspect that the idiot is the one who doesn't know what an astrologist is, yet insists on using it and then insulting other people who notice. And that would be... you.

Re:Wait, these are not MY corporations

[murdocj]

The 9 billion was already wasted, Obama simply had the courage to admit that.

Re:Wait, these are not MY corporations

[Karmashock]

These two comments underline the problem with keeping the space program in the government's hands. The reality is that the political divides within the US are making US governance dysfunctional and ultimately everything that we wish to remain reliable must be isolated or abstracted away from the ebb and flow of the two parties war over control. Doubtless both sides will say the best solution is for the other side to submit to it's power but that seems unlikely. If carried to an extreme that will mean the end of the republic as all decisions will be in the hands of the unelected. The democrats hate the space program except when they love it and the republicans love the space program except when they hate it. There's little rhyme or reason to it. They're both playing to the crowd when they think it will win them votes and when not they'll loot the budget for other programs or ideas. Who trusts they'll keep funding space programs and who even trusts that NASA is doing a good job of allocating what resources it gets? We've all heard the horror stories of no-bid contracts, cost plus contracts, and just straight up cronyism as it regards these things. A private sector space industry if it can actually be nurtured into existence will self sustain, self direct, and be both beyond the inevitable chaos of US politics without requiring the republic to chain itself to an endless system of unalterable rules. So that is why I find the private sector model appealing. I question whether those that are against it do so because they don't believe it will be made a reality or whether they're just reflexively anti corporate despite the fact that we all depend upon the corporations as economic institutions. Ironically, it seems those that live in cities seem to hate them most even though none are more dependent upon them then those same people. Just an observation.

Re:Wait, these are not MY corporations

[Teancum]

Democrats are all for market solutions for spacelaunch..... because the current system is so screwed up that going with a "market solution" is 100% not the way that George W. Bush did it. Therefore it must be good.

I do like this phrase: "Democrats don't think free markets work in the atmosphere, Republicans don't think it works above."

BTW, the $9 billion being dumped on Constellation is mostly a Republican earmark of monumental proportions. I find it strange that of all of the earmarks that Republicans are willing to keep, this one stands out. I think that figure may even be a bit low, but that is your figure and large enough I can live with it as it gets the point across that it is a colossal waste of money. For myself, I think Constellation is just plain wrong to be happening for many reasons, even if it might be a potential employer for myself and that its cancellation will adversely impact many of my neighbors.

Re:Wait, these are not MY corporations

[Teancum]

The ghost of Constellation keeps on marching on like a zombie that has to be killed multiple times. It has morphed into SLS and will likely morph again into something else, while the Ares I has now morphed into the "Liberty" spacecraft.

Keep in mind that the Ares I was mainly supposed to be a Shuttle SRB that flew on its own, but since it didn't have enough "umph" to make it to orbit, they had to add an extra section.... which added far more complications to the design than anybody who started the idea was willing to admit.

Now if NASA could only design a rocket system that actually flew. NASA has a dismal record of one launcher program after another getting cancelled, of which the Constellation program is merely the last of a long line of bureaucratic failures. Fancy dreams do eventually have to face the ugly truth called physics, and the results often aren't pretty.

ah, Pete Olson

[Trepidity]

So, he ran on a platform of slashing nearly all government programs, eliminating many agencies entirely, and halving the budgets of others--- because private-sector alternatives are always superior, whether it's private schools, private healthcare, or corporate research labs.

Oh, except NASA, which is a vitally important public service that can't be replicated in the private sector. Coincidentally, he represents a district in southeastern Houston, and NASA is one of the largest employers in that district.

Re:ah, Pete Olson

[EMI Lab]

Well, get your facts checked. DOD terminated the GE JSF engine. I know. I was working on the EMI/EMC compliance on the engine control (FADEC) system. My new assignments are related to EMC compliance of space packages for ATK boosters that are under development. To be honest both the republicraps and democraps are responsible for the difficulities we are in. They are both paid-off by the big corporations and wall street. Both parties idea of fiscal responsibility are based on smoke and mirrors. They both lie and blame each other for accomplishing nothing while accepting money from their buddies. We have all been effectively hoodwinked.

Re:ah, Pete Olson

[jittles]

And I don't buy this "sigh, those politicians are all the same" line of defeatist bullshit. Yes, the Democrats have disappointed me in MANY cases, but there is a clear difference, in my book, in the parties when it comes to who is willing to govern with a sense of rationality, and in a manner that supports the interest of the American people.

Just because he can see what's going on doesn't mean he's a defeatist. For all you know, he is actively trying to change politics in the US. But you'd have to be blind to think that the parties aren't practically identical in every way. The only difference is who the politicians play homage to. Just ask any of our European friends on Slashdot. Most of them would agree that even from an external perspective both parties look very similar, even if they typically prefer the foreign policies of democrats.

Re:ah, Pete Olson

[s122604]

Identical? Not a chance. Yes, I do understand political disappointment, particularly with the Democratic party. And I understand the simple urge that can lead one to be bitter and cynical, but the two parties are not the same, not even close

Democrats : Largely support a women's right to have an abortion, particularly early in pregnancy
Republicans: Openly support utilizing the policing-power of government (i.e. force, i.e. men with badges and guns, judges, and prisons) to FORCE women to have children they don't want to have, no matter what stage of the pregnancy, and no matter what the circumstances. And no, that's not an exaggeration, that is the avowed policy of most of the Republican field of candidates for President, including Michelle Bachman, and Sarah Palin. Heck, there are even republicans in the deep south who haven't given up on the prevention of interracial marrage.

Democrats: Largely support comprehensive health care reform, many including my former congressman, who got beaten by a tea-party darling, supported a public option. Yes, the bill that passed leaved a LOT to be desired, but that is largely do to the compromises that had to be made.
Republicans: support corporate health care, and continuing the specter of medical bankruptcy for Americans too "rich" for Medicaid, too young for Medicare, and not in possession of a government job...

Democrats: majority voted AGAINST the Iraq war, and the majority including the President support a rational US foreign policy. Now, 1000% yes, Obama has disappointed me here, but the fact remains he absolutely has drawn down our forces in Iraq (though not as fast as I'd like) faster than any Republican ever proposed to. I'm also mad at him for not shutting down Gitmo, although he did rewrite our policy on torture, which is a good thing
Republicans: All except Ron Paul seem to be in support of an eternal/unfunded worldwide police action (except Libya of course since that's "Obama's war")...

Democrats: Have (largely) supported gay rights, including the repeal of the awful defense of marriage act (DOMA) and the repeal of don't-ask-don't-tell
Republicans: Continue to appose gay rights (well, most of them, Dick Cheny, now that he has no election to win, actually supports gay marriage), including banning gay parents from adopting, equating homosexuals with pedophiles, and support debunked "conversion" therapies...

Republicans: Supported the citizens united ruling (look it up), and have blasted Network Neutrality regulations as "government censorship"
Democrats: have been critical of the citizens united ruling, and have largely supported network neutrality regulations...

Re:ah, Pete Olson

[s122604]

.America has...like...way more people than alot of other first world countries. Of course we pay twice as much as everyone else for health care. More people, more money. Duh.

Are you stupid, or just trolling?
When I say we pay more, I mean we pay more, per capita, then any other nation..

Here: unignorantize yourself : http://www.creditloan.com/blog/2010/03/01/healthcare-costs-around-the-world/

There's no plan there...

[Michael_gr]

Only a call to create a plan. The article is wrongfully disdainful of private rocket companies. Nine years ago, SpaceX started developing their launch systems. They started from scratch. They Spent maybe 10% of the equivalent NASA budget for Constellation. And they have something to show for it - several successful launches, a space capsule that has successfully returned form orbit and is being fitted for a manned launch, and a heavy launch vehicle in the works. NASA, in the mean time, was creating a *derived* system and yet ran into technological problems and have yet to produce a single piece of hardware that can do anything. Obama is diverting funds from a slow-moving, conservative, wasteful government agency and cancelled an under-performing, over-budget, technologically conservative (and yet riddled with problems) program. The money was diverted to the free market. And yet, all the space-loving republicans who touted the free market's ability to compete with NASA are now howling and complaining. Why? cause it's OBAMA, that's why.

Re:There's no plan there...

[Issarlk]

Nope. Because SpaceX is not in their backyard, employing their electors.

Re:There's no plan there...

[Hazel Bergeron]

If by "scratch" you mean using existing launch sites, applying NASA discoveries, tech and employees, and taking expertise from ("investing in") existing academic spin-offs and other established aerospace operations, then yes, SpaceX started from "scratch".

This is how it always is when an industry is privatised: following a period where politics deliberately stifles the government programme, there are calls for privatisation; the early gold-diggers plough funds into the project, essentially copying what has gone before and producing what appears to be progress but is in fact little more than a reimplementation of what has gone before. A decade later, we will be back to stagnation, but with control out of the hands of the people and reliance on a bulky corporate infrastructure with no incentive but profit.

The same pattern has been observed with every major industry since the early '80s yet we continue being suckers for punishment. And now we have soooo much choice and everything's so much better, right? If the only pace of government-sponsored technological development from the '50s through the '70s had been maintained for another 30 years! But, no, in the US it was redirected entirely to the purpose of toppling the USSR from the '80s, and then sold off to the friendliest bidder. And China, which is not so friendly, but knows how to be a good creditor.

Re:There's no plan there...

[robot256]

So? What is wrong with letting the private sector do what they are best at--taking existing technology and refining it to the point of profitability? It's not trivial work, and we need it done just as much as we need the research in the first place. I think we've pretty well proven that the current system of government funding is incapable of actually producing an efficient production program.

Besides, the minute the space shuttle became a "production" vehicle, the progress stopped. It should never have been elevated to that status; the shuttle was an incomplete and half-baked idea from the start and should have been the first in a long list of modern spacecraft experiments by NASA. Instead, we were stuck with a boondoggle program in need of justification, hence Hubble and the space station. All worthy enterprises, but could have been so, so much cheaper if the shuttle had been refined for another 10 years--or changed completely--before production.

IMHO, the real test is to see if we can jump-start the real research in NASA while simultaneously promoting private-sector production development of existing technologies. And no, a Constellation-style (read: Apollo-style) heavy-lift rocket does not constitute real research. That too can be left to the private sector. I've said it a million times, Constellation was squarely on track to become just as expensive and unreliable as the shuttle--that "$9b wasted" was a drop in the bucket compared to what the program would have cost in the long run. The real research is in ion & plasma drives, space elevators, and planetary exploration vehicles, etc.

Re:There's no plan there...

[NReitzel]

At the risk of Piling On, let me point out that NASA spent nearly two billion dollars on developing plans for their Great Space Station. After years and years of practice, they had produced many viewgraphs and powerpoint presentations. And who flew the first piece of the space station? The Russians, of course. Whose spacecraft ferry crew to and from the space station? The Russians, of course. Who launches resupply missions to the space station? The Russians, of course.

And as for wasting nine billion dollars, what did we get for nine billion dollars? Some nice animations about what a great thing the Constellation program ought to be. We have a booster launch that wasn't even a new booster, it was the same old Solid Rocket Booster that blew up the Challanger, with a dummy fifth segment. And the spacecraft? What a spacecraft. A recycled Apollo capsule.

The NASA we have now is a ghost of what it was. The good engineers have left (and gone to SpaceX, among many others) and what we are left with are slackers and bureaucrats, and a labor force that wants to keep doing whatever they are doing. Should they learn something new? Oh, heck no. Let's just try to go back to the glory days of Apollo, and relabel it "Constellation".

There is absolutely no riskier plan on or off Earth, than not taking any risks.

Who's going to pay for their insanity?

[toetagger]

You will, who else?

Real soon now...

[taiwanjohn]

> In coming weeks we, with others committed to the HSF program, will offer a more detailed plan to return to flight.

So... what? Do they have a plan already, and the just aren't ready to tell us? Or are they still thinking about it? What's the point of even making an announcement like this if all you've got to say is a few extremely general talking points?

Basically, we have a TX congressman who wants to get the pork flowing back to his deep-pocket-donor pals in the military/industrial complex. [yawn]

When Did Koch Industries Get Into Aerospace?

[cmholm]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same Olson who never met a program he didn't want to cut, or a tax expenditure (ie. loophole) for the oil industry he didn't want to protect? It's natural for a Congressional Rep to protect local industry, so I'm not surprised he's looking to replace his pork funding stream.

The days when a noticeable fraction of the US GDP goes into NASA are long over. Unless someone discovers an asteroid that shits tax breaks, private industry is going to stick with shooting sats into orbit. It's been a nice ride, but US man-in-space is basically over for the rest of my lifetime. I'll be interested to see how far the Chinese and Indians go before they hit their own limits.

The snarky title refers to Rep. Olson's largest campaign contributor, and I think it safe to say that the Kochs' could give a rat's behind about space flight.

Re:When Did Koch Industries Get Into Aerospace?

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

It's been a nice ride, but US man-in-space is basically over for the rest of my lifetime.

I remember watching Gordo Cooper's flight in the 3rd grade, first time I'd ever seen a TV in a classroom.
I remember Ed White walking in space, and later dying.
I remember Jim Lovell and Frank Borman on Christmas eve.
I remember watching Neil and Buzzy live from the Moon.
I remember getting up at 3:00 AM to watch STS-1 take off.
And I remember getting up at 4:00 AM and tearing up as STS-135 landed, thinking "Well, that's the last I'll ever see of this".

Shit, I got something in my eye again.

Re:Constellation was not a Shuttle Replacement.

[taiwanjohn]

No, but it did use a lot of shuttle pieces & parts (like SRB's) which would keep certain contractors flush with money.

I agree with the GP (Michael_gr) that it's nice to see SpaceX showing us how it should be done. The authors of this article are either ignorant of SpaceX or deliberately disregarding it. Notice that they published this piece in Politico, where many non-geek readers are likely to be unaware of SpaceX's success.

This is a "prestige" plan without a mission

[Dr. Spork]

To be honest, I prefer Obama's "let the private sector do it" approach to manned space travel than the Texas Republican's "only big government can do it" manifesto. (I hope the irony is not lost on anyone.) In general, we need do de-emphasize human missions. These are largely vanity projects and don't generate anywhere near as much science as things like Wmap and the Mars rovers. The first question that any NASA proposal should begin with is: What do we want to learn about space? And what's the safest and most cost-effective way to learn it? These guys are still stuck in the old "wouldn't it be cool if we launched a guy to ...?"

Re:This is a "prestige" plan without a mission

[hey!]

I see non-manned missions as a sensible prerequisite to manned ones. Before Vostok 1 you had Sputnik. There were 20 robotic launches in the Mercury Program before Alan Shepard went up on Mercury-Redstone 3. Before the manned lunar landing we had the Ranger, Surveyer and Lunar Orbiter programs.

Even if you didn't care about the people you send to, say Mars, it would be financially unconscionable to send them there before we'd done some missions that returned Martian samples to earth. I'll give a few reasons here:

* Experience shows that Mars landings are risky.
* We have no experience with Mars launches; a few test runs are needed if returning human explorers is important.
* Identify targets which can best be studied by humans before sending very expensive missions.
* Maintain and advance planetary exploration skills with frequent cheap missions where failure *is* an option.
* Reduce cost of manned exploration by developing proven and reliable systems.
* Develop a sustainable, successful planetary exploration program before risking everything on a fabulously expensive manned mission with untried technology and uncertain goals.

There are times when you have to be bold, but there are times when being sensible is the bold thing.

Re:All for free

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

In 1979, during a similar dick-waving exercise as today, the US didn't pay some (tiny fraction of) T-bills in a timely manner, technically defaulting on them. The result was that the US had to pay a higher interest rate on all its debt for many years afterwards. Quickest link I could find, plenty more out there.

Re:Constellation was not a Shuttle Replacement.

[scharkalvin]

From scratch means SpaceX had developed their own rocket engines and systems to go along with them. Sure, they are using existing launch systems, why not?
The Falcon 1 rocket will earn them money by launching commercial satellites. The Falcon 9 along with the Dragon capsule will become the system to re-supply the ISS and ferry astronauts to and from the ISS. The upcoming Falcon 9 heavy has about half the weight lifting ability of the Saturn-V rocket. It uses a new concept of staging where the strap on tank-boosters transfer fuel back into the core during initial flight so when the boosters separate the core is still fully fueled. Also since the boosters are separated at a lower altitude and speed they should be re-usable. The Falcon 9 heavy is the result of a lot of new thinking, and will out perform existing Titan and Atlas based heavy lift systems. It will also provide the lowest cost to orbit per lb of ANY rocket system yet.