Is Obama-Bolden budget a tool to kill NASA?

[rockett]

The Augustine Report, that document that the administration is using for cover to avoid funding manned space flight, has this to say about heavy lift.

From the Executive Summary (page 12): No one knows the mass or dimensions of the largest hardware
that will be required for future exploration missions, but it will likely be significantly larger than 25 metric tons (mt) in launch mass to low-Earth orbit, which is the capability of current launchers. As the size of the launcher increases, the result is fewer launches and less operational complexity in terms of assembly and/or refueling in space."

Basically, without heavy lift, anything beyond LEO is a pipe dream. The question is how heavy is heavy. The Augustine speaks indirectly to this as well in Figure 3.3.2-2 on page 3 mentions 9 ARES V class launchs as being required to test a Mars solution on the moon. Figuring that the ARES V is capable of 140 metric tons to orbit (also from Augustine), by my math that's around 1260 metric tons to LEO to mount missions of the magnitude that the administration wants us to believe that we will be pursuing. Bottom line is that we're going to need a significantly higher lift capability than we have or each mission beyond LEO is going to require a massive assembly project similar to the ISS if we try to ride uphill on bottle rockets.

Further, the Augustine report does not mention any glimmar of hope for "game changing" technologies from ride to LEO perspective. Most of their options were solid/cryo based with some nod to Kerosene or other dino burner for lower stages. In other words, for the ride uphill, if we wait till 2015, we're waiting to buld something we already know how to build today. I am 100% confident that the administration knows this. They also know that no commercial venture has such a booster on the drawing board. Further, they know that no commercial venture has crew capsule/transport designed for months - years in space beyond LEO with all the radiation and redundancy that will require. In other words, no calvary is coming over that hill in 2015.

Back to the point of the thread, kill NASA? Probably not. But it is quite plausible that this entire series of events was designed to avoid funding manned space flight on his watch. Did they up NASA's budget? Yes, primarily as pork to lead us to believe they're committed to commercial options. However, the lift is significantly short of the 3 billion/yr that Augustine suggested would be necessary to pursue goals of this nature. We're out of the business of manned space flight without congressional intervention.

Very good summation 'splinters. Also if you look at the figures in constant dollars or percentage of the Federal budget, you actually have a net decrease between now and 2015. By 2015, I suspect the plan is to stall one more year, then bail...

 

[kelvinzero]

((2) That link only goes up to 2010, money thrown at constellation. We are discussing FY2011. Top line increase of $6.0 billion over 5-years (FY 2011-15) compared to the FY 2010 Budget, for a total of $100 billion over five years. See the FY2011 budget overview pdf; first line.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_ Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf

Since you bring it up, let's look at key parts from the NASA Budget.

Critical Technology Demonstrations (page 6)
Demonstrates critical technologies such as in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, and other next-generation capabilities.
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Exploration Tech and Demo $652 $1,262 $1,808 $2,013 $2,087

Not really enough for what is needed

Heavy-Lift and Propulsion R&D (page 7)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Heavy-lift $559 $594 $597 $598 $754

Way short of serious development, at a federal level, it looks more like just stalling

Commercial Crew and Cargo (page 10)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Commercial Crew $500 $1 400 $1 400 $1 300 $1 200
Commercial Cargo $312 [/code]

That is not really serious support, just a bone tossed their way.

Space Technology (page 13)
Focuses on key areas, such as communications,sensors, robotics, materials, and propulsion. (and prizes)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Space technology $572 $1,012 $1,060 $1,064 $1,218


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
TOTAL $2,595 $4,268 $4,865 $4,975 $5,259

Compared to other parts of the NATIONAL budget, all of the above is chump change.

Yes you could describe the above as chump change wrt to the national budget. NASA always has been. The FY2011 budget is still an increase over previous ones.

However even 50 million really is a fair bit of money. We should expect some progress for it. It is only these half billion dollar launches while we seem to be going around in circles that has allowed us to forget this. Rocket development is really expensive and I agree 500 million there is not much more than a holding pattern. Im happy enough about that aspect because I think the HLV decision should be delayed until commercial space and fuel depots are given a go.

I think progress into things such as closed cycle lifesupport and ISRU can make substantial leaps forward with this sort of money. My understanding is that these areas have always had minuscule funding compared to the rockets and launches till now. I have always thought this was very very wrong, because effort put into rockets faces diminishing returns, where as effort put into areas such as life support and ISRU holds the promise of accelerating returns. For example a device that could create a hundred times its own mass in useful resources such as oxygen is almost as good as reducing launch costs a hundred times. Such a device does not cost hundred million dollar tests and the explosive power of a small nuclear warhead. Whereas there are ultimate limits on how cheap rocket flight can be, the gains from these other technologies approaches infinite as your first moonbase approaches self-sufficiency. If a trillion dollars bought you a self sufficient moon base, that is the last dollar earth would ever need to spend on colonizing space.

{No one is fighting for Altair..} Therefore no one is really fighting for the moon.

Because the current administration has no intention of going anywhere in space at all. They simply want to put it far enough out in the future, that they won't have to deal with it.

What I meant is that no one fighting for HLV is fighting for Altair. Therefore they are not really fighting for the moon. Of course the current administration isn't, but they are not pretending to.

 

[kk434]

NASA has lost thier way, thats why Obama want to shut dowm thier programs and start over again. Constellation was behind schedule and over budget, so no brainer here. Dont know whats wrong with NASA now they seem to only do design studies and pay 90 percent of thier budget on bureaucracy and thats not viable. Skip the bureaucracy and launch specectaft!

 

[rockett]

Rocket development is really expensive and I agree 500 million there is not much more than a holding pattern. Im happy enough about that aspect because I think the HLV decision should be delayed until commercial space and fuel depots are given a go.

I think progress into things such as closed cycle lifesupport and ISRU can make substantial leaps forward with this sort of money. My understanding is that these areas have always had minuscule funding compared to the rockets and launches till now. I have always thought this was very very wrong, because effort put into rockets faces diminishing returns, where as effort put into areas such as life support and ISRU holds the promise of accelerating returns. For example a device that could create a hundred times its own mass in useful resources such as oxygen is almost as good as reducing launch costs a hundred times. Such a device does not cost hundred million dollar tests and the explosive power of a small nuclear warhead. Whereas there are ultimate limits on how cheap rocket flight can be, the gains from these other technologies approaches infinite as your first moonbase approaches self-sufficiency. If a trillion dollars bought you a self sufficient moon base, that is the last dollar earth would ever need to spend on colonizing space.

Like building a camper without buying a pickup truck (HLV) to pull it. There is a limit to how much ISRU "simulation" can be done here on Earth. We simply can't cover all the variables, look at how long it took us to figure out there was water on the moon -40 years. We can twiddle our thumbs another 40 years down here and still not cover them all. Supporting ISRU research here on the ground, with no more funding than that, is a joke. It is simply another bone tossed to placate critics.

What I meant is that no one fighting for HLV is fighting for Altair. Therefore they are not really fighting for the moon. Of course the current administration isn't, but they are not pretending to.

In light of the lunar water discoveries, does that make a lot of sense, with respect to ISRU and the arguments for it (above)?

 

[SciFi2010]

The criticism of the NASA budget as born of leftist intent caught me by surprise. I have grown to find many of Obama's policies rather conservative. The 5% cuts Obama is asking from his departments for 2012 for instance. Prior to BP-Gulf spill, Obama was willing to open more of US Coastal waters to drilling than any previous administration, conservative or liberal. He might be the first fiscal conservative in the White House in my time.

I think all this is proving Obama to be more of a Woodrow-Wilson-Democrat. He thinks too much and so arrives at the conservative conclusion on many issues. NASA, having been well studied for him, he arrived at the conclusion that the money available should be spent on what could really be achieved with those amounts. Is that going to kill NASA?

Is that liberal or conservative?

Neither it is just politics. Obama is just doing what most politicians would do in his position. For example the bail out of the banks would have been done regardless who would have been in charge (not bailing out the banks is just election rethoric). The problem was mostly under which conditions the bail out was given to banks: the bonus system based on short-term profit was and is not changed, most of that money wasn't lend to companies and bonuses (for management) & dividends (for shareholders) were still paid out shortly afterwards. The same goes for deep-sea oil drilling. It was and is a risky way for the US of becoming more energy independent. (if you can not solve it contain it). Constellation is not cancelled, but delayed and will come back in another form. Bush did it, Obama does it and any other president would have done the same thing. Politicians change, but the essence of its policies don't. The question is in what kind in flavour do you want it and how much? (an ounce or a pound?)

coby21 wrote:Keep "Constellation "on track. Too manny constituants, Voters, will loos jobs. We cant relly on other countrys to fery U.S. into space.

I disagree with the position on Constellation, but do find great merit in his concern over relying on other countries for Americans to reach ISS, even the Russians have said it's risky to have only one vehicle able to get humans there and at $51M a seat maybe we should be asking CHINA to bid on it.

It would be a good idea to let China bid on it to force the Russians lower their prices if the ISS becomes old technology, because of the emergence of commercial aeropspace that can compete in price and technological development (Bigelow Aerospace, SpaceX and maybe in the future Virgin Galactic, etc...). The US government could protect SpaceX by promising them fixed contracts which prevents competition with subsidies and guarantees the future of American made space vehicles. (Other space companies are or should work independent from the ISS like Bigelow Aerospace and their technology can not be outsourced anyway). In return for access to the ISS China should increase the value of yuan and do a heck of a trade deal whether it is durable technology, powerplants, trains, airplanes, whatever.... China should buy more... from us.

 

[kelvinzero]

Like building a camper without buying a pickup truck (HLV) to pull it. There is a limit to how much ISRU "simulation" can be done here on Earth. We simply can't cover all the variables, look at how long it took us to figure out there was water on the moon -40 years. We can twiddle our thumbs another 40 years down here and still not cover them all. Supporting ISRU research here on the ground, with no more funding than that, is a joke. It is simply another bone tossed to placate critics.

HLV probably killed our chance of returning to the moon. We could have put all our money into Orion and Altair (or similar), and launched them dry using Atlas or Delta Heavy.

There is a limit to how much ISRU simulation can be done here on earth, but I don't think we are remotely near that limit. Show me a robot making machines of aluminium and glass out of luna regolith simulant and then we are probably getting there.

Yes it is obscene that it was 40 years from Apollo to discovering water on the moon. I blame the cost of the Saturn V. It did not actually take 40 years to discover there was water on the moon though, that is simply the amount of time we wasted. All we needed was a sensible, sustainable series of robotic missions. and we would have known about that water for the last 40 years; more than we do now in fact, because we still havent seen it, because we still cannot soft land even a small robot. This, I also find obscene.

What I meant is that no one fighting for HLV is fighting for Altair. Therefore they are not really fighting for the moon. Of course the current administration isn't, but they are not pretending to.

In light of the lunar water discoveries, does that make a lot of sense, with respect to ISRU and the arguments for it (above)?

To fight for HLV without fighting for Altair does make sense, if your sole motivation is pork. At least the current budget does include in the current presidents term:
- A plan for affordable access to LEO.
- A robotic precursor lander/rover to the moon, to visit the pole and specifically including a ISRU component.
- Prizes and research funding for several relevant technologies.

To call the billions spent here a bone to placate critics misses the fact that the (political) critics have shown no interest in these technologies, in Altair, or in actually getting us to the moon.

 

[vulture4]

>NASA has nothing on the books, having moved on to "disposables".

One might say NASA has "retreated backward" to disposables at a time when Rutan, Musk, the DOD and even some foreign developers recognize that reusables are the future. It's not Obama that is killing NASA, its the shortsightedness of the Bush administration in abandoning both Shuttle and ISS.

But as to whether NASA management is needed to produce an HLV, if one is really needed, ULA already has offered a concept based entirely on existing hardware good almost to 100 MT to LEO, and SpaceX could undoubtedly also do so if it wanted to do so, in fact that's probably why they have expressed intereest in a larger engine. However I want to stress that the logic that we "need" and HLV to return to the moon is difficult to defend unless the taxpayers decide they are really desperate to send people back to the moon immediately and at any cost. The obstacle is not a lack of national leadership. The obstacle is that regardless of the potential for ISRU such a mission with conventional expendable launch vehicles would cost more than it would return, and much more than the taxpayers are willing to spend. In fact, the taxpayers demanding the HLV and attacking Obama for not delivering are the same ones who want more tax cuts. That's why the first step to the moon is to reduce the cost of human flight to LEO by at least a factor of ten.

full size image

 

[neutrino78x]

In fact, the taxpayers demanding the HLV and attacking Obama for not delivering are the same ones who want more tax cuts.

lol, exactly, and most people posting on here don't pay high federal income taxes anyway! The highest federal income tax bracket is like 35% and you have to make A LOT of money to pay that, over 350,000 USD/year. If you make under 84,000 USD/year you would pay 25% federal income tax. Personally, I make minimum wage, unfortunately, and I don't owe any federal income taxes.

US Federal income tax brackets 2010

That's why the first step to the moon is to reduce the cost of human flight to LEO by at least a factor of ten.

Yes, exactly. All these other things become possible if the launch cost is lower.

--Brian