NASA + Congress suffers from ADHD

[DarkenedOne]

ADHD is a phychartic disorder characterized by the inability to remain focused on an activity for very long. Untimately this describes the way NASA and the US government is acting right now. They go from going to the moon to going to asteroids to going to Mars.

Ultimately I think it comes down to one serious flaw in how this nation conducts exploration, and that is we decide on what destination we want to go to, and then we build our space infrastructure to go to that one location. The problem with the method of exploration is that it leads to very high development costs and long development times. Combined with the constantly shifting administrations and priorities of the government

What NASA needs to do is to take a lesson from the military, and develop a single, flexible infrastructure that would be capable of a number of missions. Instead of getting the mission first then deciding what you need to succeed the military comes up with a range of possible missions then designs a flexible infrastructure to take care of all of them. In the same way NASA should identify a range of possible missions, and then engineer their infrastructure to be able to accommodate all of them.

This infrastructure should include human transport to LEO and Saturn V like heavy lift. The LEO transport can be provided commercially by both domestic and international vehicles, which leaves NASA with building the HLV.

 

[rockett]

Which seems to be the way the Senate is leaning, at present.

 

[menellom]

The current House and Senate version of the NAB will more than likely end up with us just going back to work on Constellation.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

What NASA needs to do is to take a lesson from the military, and develop a single, flexible infrastructure that would be capable of a number of missions. Instead of getting the mission first then deciding what you need to succeed the military comes up with a range of possible missions then designs a flexible infrastructure to take care of all of them. In the same way NASA should identify a range of possible missions, and then engineer their infrastructure to be able to accommodate all of them.

This infrastructure should include human transport to LEO and Saturn V like heavy lift. The LEO transport can be provided commercially by both domestic and international vehicles, which leaves NASA with building the HLV.

And this is exactly what Congress and the Senate were chewing NASA's butt off for. I remember some of the hearings where the idiot senators and congressmen where saying but without a destination how can you have any space program? LOL it’s a vicious cycle that NASA is caught in.

 

[rcsplinters]

This is a good discussion topic. Regardless of which side of the design fence you sit on or which LEO start up you hold stock in, you have to be concerned for the lack of continuity shown in our space program. The problem, as we all know, is decades old. In my mind, NASA is the easy target to blame, but that blame would be misplaced. NASA is what Congress and the administration have made it and I'm not talking about just the current one, though they are bucking for head of the meddling class, certainly. In some sense, I think the issue lies with the head of NASA being essentially a political appointee. I further think the problem stems from the fact that its way too easy for a political moniker to change the direction of NASA. The great surprise is the fact that NASA has accomplished all that is has given the political currents that can undercut any program.

So what's the answer to all of this? I think the charter for NASA must be fundamentally changed. First, the head of NASA should be stabilized and evaluated on performance. It must cease to be a political appointment. Second, I think that the administration and congress must be removed from doing anything aside from sitting goals, Moon, Mars, Commercial flight, etc. There is no rationale justification for a 2 year president to be able to terminate a mature program like Constellation or a congress to scuttle a commercialization effort. One approach might be to permit the president to establish goals and have Congress ratify those. Once established, then require different majorites of congress to depart from those strategies based on maturity of the program. Possibly, a non-term board of directors might be established for NASA with oversight for achieving the goals but with autonomy to establishing and maintaining programs to meet those goals.


I don't know what the answer is. I am confident we will not succeed in reaching Mars or much of anything outside LEO if our hardware changes with the last election. We simply must have continuity.

 

[Valcan]

ADHD is a phychartic disorder characterized by the inability to remain focused on an activity for very long. .

I have this
Its really hard to deal with sometimes

OHH look at the kitty....

 

[vulture4]

If we really need an HLV we can simply procure one whenever its needed. ULA has advertised derivatives of the D-IV all the way up to 100 MT to LEO. SpaceX could easily come up with something similar. Both would use all-liquid propulsion. No new technology is required, so despite the size of an HLV it is low risk and doesn't require NASA to design it. The real reason for the HLV program, as it is proposed, appears to be to force the assigned contractor to use a specific design approach that wouldn't normally be appealing because of its extremely high operational cost, the obsolete solid-fuel boosters built by politically powerful ATK. Similarly the Ares I program is proceeding at full speed to use the same expensive old tech to duplicate the capabilities of the three existing US medium-lift ELVs on the peculiar premise that it is "man-rated".

I certainly agree that continuity is important. That's why I opposed cancellation of the Space Shuttle by the Bush Administration, creating a multiyear gap in human spaceflight capability, to restart a duplicate of Apollo which, had been cancelled as unaffordable by Nixon before Shuttle was started. Reusable launch vehicles are intended to reduce the cost of human spaceflight to a level that could actually make it practical. Large expendables, at least so far, have been designed for spectacular feats that returned nothing of practical value and were too expensive to sustain. I still don't understand who is going to pay for this new Apollo program. American taxpayers aren't clamoring for new things to spend tax dollars on, in fact they want their taxes cut.

 

[rcsplinters]

You'll note that you don't see commercial suppliers lining up to produce that 150 mt HLV. You don't find anyone in a decision making postion which says that an HLV is not required and that mid-100 range seems to pop up repeatedly with any long term beyond LEO capability.

In all honesty, I think it comes down to couple of very simple observations.

- Going beyond LEO is going to be hugely expensive no matter who does it.
- No commercial entity is offering a turn key for us to go to any destination for science other than the ISS in the next 5 years.
- There is no gaming changing technology for the ride to LEO on the horizon
- The administration claims to have aspirations beyond LEO, but destroyed the program intended to take us there without replacement.

I see it this way, if the national goal is move outside LEO, then we better get ready to pay the bills and they are going to be very large (comically, the booster likely isn't going to be the big bill). If we aren't willing to pay the price, then let's not hide behind hollow words, let's just say "we quit" rather than taking the path of the political coward, which we are currently on.

I will give you one thing. Nixon's move was even worse than Obama's. However, that wasn't cancelled due to costs (as was the public spin), it was cancelled because the american public was perceived to be soft on a mission which was now 'old hat'. He was unwilling to take the heat for a mission failure in those conditions. It seems that our politicians are incapable of realizing that support for manned space exploration can't be measured like most other programs. Its only when that capability is in jeopardy or we lose a crew that the support is felt. I guess its a little like freedom in that respect. Our current administration is learning that lesson now.

 

[DarkenedOne]

You'll note that you don't see commercial suppliers lining up to produce that 150 mt HLV. You don't find anyone in a decision making postion which says that an HLV is not required and that mid-100 range seems to pop up repeatedly with any long term beyond LEO capability.

In all honesty, I think it comes down to couple of very simple observations.

- Going beyond LEO is going to be hugely expensive no matter who does it.
- No commercial entity is offering a turn key for us to go to any destination for science other than the ISS in the next 5 years.
- There is no gaming changing technology for the ride to LEO on the horizon
- The administration claims to have aspirations beyond LEO, but destroyed the program intended to take us there without replacement.

I see it this way, if the national goal is move outside LEO, then we better get ready to pay the bills and they are going to be very large (comically, the booster likely isn't going to be the big bill). If we aren't willing to pay the price, then let's not hide behind hollow words, let's just say "we quit" rather than taking the path of the political coward, which we are currently on.

I will give you one thing. Nixon's move was even worse than Obama's. However, that wasn't cancelled due to costs (as was the public spin), it was cancelled because the american public was perceived to be soft on a mission which was now 'old hat'. He was unwilling to take the heat for a mission failure in those conditions. It seems that our politicians are incapable of realizing that support for manned space exploration can't be measured like most other programs. Its only when that capability is in jeopardy or we lose a crew that the support is felt. I guess its a little like freedom in that respect. Our current administration is learning that lesson now.

I hear you, rcsplinters. However as many people fail to realize is that we already have a heavy lift. Despite the fact that it is only able to transport 20 mt of payload the Space Shuttle has a maximum takeoff weight of almost 110mt. That is because the shuttle orbiter itself with the engines installed weigh about 80 mt.

Based on this information I could not imagine a heavy lift vehicle costing more than the shuttle does right now. That is if NASA does not try and anything fancy with it. A big dumb booster is all we need. There is no need for man rating it. No need for making it reusable. I am willing to bet that the Ares V if it is ever developed would cost even less than the shuttle.

Now if we could get Congress and NASA to abandon the idea of build a totally new, untested rocket for an estimated $40 just to do what commercial launch providers can do with manned versions of their already existing and highly reliable unmanned launch vehicles for a few hundred million. Then we would have more than enough money to develop and maintain a new heavy lift. If not and NASA is forced to build another LEO only vehicle like Ares I then I do not think enough money will be available to go beyond.

 

[EarthlingX]

Congress doesn't want NASA to go anywhere, they just want to be re-elected, and since people who were hurt by the previous visionary administration's plans are loudest, it's obvious what they will do.
It is logical, from their point of view, it just doesn't help expansion of humanity into space, but social peace. I'm also in doubt how much it helps technological base, since Shuttle technology is rather old, and SRBs with vertical processing will not get any cheaper, especially if they will use SSMEs as expendable engines. That one hurts, it's like making a beautiful precision watch, just to look at it once, than throw it away, not that there are that many to do that ..

If they made possible business environment, in which those highly skilled workers would be able to find a new job, as would be expected from a government, that would not be a problem. Shuttle people could even teach younger generation, if there would be money for education ..

If i remember correctly, they found a solution to NASA budget much faster, than where to host orbiters past retirement, brilliant ..