Orion won't fly until early 2015

Boris_Badenov · Feb 28, 2007

Budget crunch delays NASA's moon ship Orion won't fly until early 2015, four to six months later than planned By Kasie Hunt WASHINGTON - NASA will delay the first manned flight of the new spacecraft designed to take humans back to the moon because of budget constraints, the agency's boss said Wednesday. The craft, called the Orion, won't fly until early 2015, four to six months later than planned, NASA administrator Michael Griffin told lawmakers. "We simply do not have the money available" to fly in 2014 as originally planned, he said. The delay is the result of a $545 million difference between President Bush's request for the agency this year and the money Congress included in a spending bill Bush signed this month. Lawmakers gave the space agency the same amount of money it received in 2006. "The net result of the decrease will be a four- to six-month delay of the Orion crew vehicle," Griffin told the Senate Commerce Committee's space subcommittee. That's more time the U.S. will go without any manned spaceflight capability _ the space shuttle is slated for retirement in 2010. It will fly 13 or 14 more missions to finish the International Space Station and maintain the Hubble space telescope. Griffin said the gap between the shuttle's retirement and Orion's debut raises practical and strategic concerns. "When you don't fly for four or more years, people become stale ... facilities degrade. It's not a good thing," he said. "Our human spaceflight expertise will be depleted to a certain extent." Griffin also pointed out that other countries would continue to fly humans and cargo into space while Americans were grounded. "For the United States not to be among them is tragic," he said. "The U.S. will be in a position of purchasing crew and cargo services from other countries." The Orion is the ship designed to carry astronauts to the moon and later to Mars. Bush announced the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div> </div>

holmec · Mar 1, 2007

Wow! But I like how Griffin is communicating to Congress. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

subzero788 · Mar 1, 2007

Disappointing but can't say it wasn't expected. Expect further delays. If it does fly in 2015 I'll be suprised <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

dreada5 · Mar 1, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />But I like how Griffin is communicating to Congress. <hr /></blockquote> Agreed. I hope COTS is successful and is ready post-shuttle retirement 2010. But I think Griffin is right not to talk COTS with Congress but should continue fighting to get adequate federal funding to fly Orion to schedule. NASA should be prepared with contigency and a Plan-B, but should not concede failure at this point and overly focus/expect delays.

spacelifejunkie · Mar 1, 2007

"I'm not worried about the moon right now. I'm worried about replacing the shuttle," he said. I think the world of Dr. Griffin so my following criticism is meant with the upmost respect. Dr. Griffin could not be more wrong. In context, I understand his statement. But this statement is the epitome of the oxymoron of VSE. VSE is weak on vision and more importantly urgency. Dr. Griffin is in a tough, tough position to make the return to the moon possible. I also take issue with his comments about manned spaceflight. Dr. Griffin claims that America won't have manned space travel until 2015 yet $500 million was donated to Kistler and SpaceX to do just that right at shuttle retirement time. Again, I understand the context of his statement but I hope this isn't the arrogant "it isn't manned spaceflight unless we do it" mentality creeping in. I have always believed that SpaceX, Bigelow and others will set foot on the moon and Mars long before NASA will. NASA is capable but Congress and the next President may not be. SLJ

mooware · Mar 1, 2007

Just a curiosity. Would Benson, Bigelow and others have to have special permission to go to the moon? Once they are out of Earths orbit is there any regulation on what they can or can't do if they go to the Moon?

radarredux · Mar 1, 2007

> "When you don't fly for four or more years, people become stale ... facilities degrade. It's not a good thing," he said. "Our human spaceflight expertise will be depleted to a certain extent." ... "The U.S. will be in a position of purchasing crew and cargo services from other countries."/i> Just what we have been saying on these boards all along. Griffin must be reading them. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

radarredux · Mar 1, 2007

From the New York Times article:<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Senators Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida and chairman of the committee’s Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the ranking Republican, repeated their hope for limiting the “gap” in American manned space flight. Mr. Nelson said that it was a national security issue and that he would push for more money for the shuttle replacement in a supplemental spending bill this spring.p><hr /></blockquote> Hopefully Congress will follow through with a supplemental bill. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/science/space/01nasa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

MeteorWayne · Mar 1, 2007

Unfortunately, he just has to distribute whatever budget he gets. Not a very fun job <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

josh_simonson · Mar 1, 2007

>I also take issue with his comments about manned spaceflight. Dr. Griffin claims that America won't have manned space travel until 2015 yet $500 million was donated to Kistler and SpaceX to do just that right at shuttle retirement time. As I understand it, the 500m shortfall is for THIS YEAR, whereas the COTS contract is paid out over several years. The 500m shortfall could also compound badly - if you don't get a raise on a given year it means that you need a double-sized raise the next year to put you back on the same track against inflation. If next year NASA gets a weak inflation adjusted raise from this years amount, it will mean basically a 500m reduction for every year. Also there is confusion above between VSE and ESAS. VSE simply states that we should go to the moon, mars and beyond without technical specifics. ESAS is the program that was built to accomplish the VSE, and is where Orion and Aries come in. I very much doubt that many informed people here are against the VSE (except perhaps the order and timeline of exploration), but there are many that are against ESAS. I suspect that the president's poor popularity makes VSE an easy target because it is associated with him, but he can't be all-bad all the time and I believe that history will remember VSE as one of the most positive aspects of this presidency - as long as ESAS doesn't turn into a fiasco. I also suspect that the president realizes this and isn't fighting tooth and nail for NASA so that the program isn't identified as a beloved pet program of his that the democrats would be temped to kill out of spite.

SpaceKiwi · Mar 1, 2007

I agree with the viewpoint that Orion will be lucky to fly in 2015 either unless there is a fundamental shift in thinking years out. NASA has struggled to get the funding it wants year on year, so it's really hard to see a scenario whereby the gap to maiden flight doesn't grow bigger. What prospects are there for speeding the development up significantly post 2010? One can imagine that once Shuttle is off Congress' radar for good, they will start to moan about the big gap to maiden Orion flight. You would like to think that will result in more funding to accelerate the Program back onto the original timeline? However, you've got to factor in the inevitable development glitches as well. That may well cancel out the positive of more money being thrown at the Program closer to the time of first launch. Result: maiden flight date continues to stretch off into the distance. They really can't afford to let the budget slip even this far out, or 2014/5 is going to be pie in the sky by the time 2010 rolls around. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

MeteorWayne · Mar 1, 2007

As a pragmatist, unless something dramatic changes no VSE mission will take place before 2020. Sadly, I am unlikely to live that long <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

spacelifejunkie · Mar 1, 2007

Josh_Simonson, Thanks for the clarity, VSE is broad and ESAS is the real issue. I will stick to my position, however, that NASA's limitations are political. Only corporations who are profit motivated can clarify these immense goals and the means to obtain them in a reasonable time frame. Alt.space has a long way to go but they are inching ahead. A critical mass of technical success, venture capital and profit will make alt.space what we hope it to be. I am an optimist. Time is the real monster. Since VSE's initiation, NASA has tried to fix the shuttle, complete ISS, recover from Hurricane Katrina, design a lunar architecture using parts not originally designed for a lunar mission, cut important science and aeronautics funding, and now, lobby Congress for more money. IMHO, if they pull all of this off, it is a BIGGER accomplishment than Apollo! I have faith in NASA, I don't have faith in Washington DC and the American public to support this endeavor. Like I read on another blog somewhere, NASA's support from the American people is a mile wide and an inch deep. SLJ

PistolPete · Mar 1, 2007

Mr. Griffin's deliberately failed to mention COTS in his address to Congress, but it wasn't to belittle the program or to try to get it canceled. Congressmen stereotypically have very bad short term memories. It has been stated that getting Congress to do something is equivocal to herding cats. The reason that he failed to mention COTS was that if he did mention COTS, then Congress might get the idea in its head that since the COTS program seems to be cheaper, then why not just cancel the CEV outright and make do with COTS. To a bunch of lawyers that no nothing about the complexities of spaceflight this may seem like a good idea, fiscally, however everyone here knows otherwise. COTS can’t go to the Moon or on to Mars and if Orion and Ares were canceled, then we would spend the next 50 years going around in circles again. Mr. Griffin wants to turn NASA back into an exploration agency again and leave the “delivery truck” work to the private sector. I doubt that there is more than a hand full of Congressmen who even know what COTS is, and all of them are smart enough not to mention it. Mr. Griffin’s statements were meant to guilt-trip Congress into increasing NASA’s budget back to the asked for levels. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai </div>

josh_simonson · Mar 1, 2007

I just don't want people saying they're against VSE when they probably aren't. We don't want NASA, reporters or political pollsters trolling around to find that people oppose 'VSE' and take that to mean they want an unambitious space program without long term goals.

radarredux · Mar 1, 2007

> As I understand it, the 500m shortfall is for THIS YEAR/i> By the way, the $500M is actually worse than it sounds. From the transcripts on Griffin's Feb 5th discussion about the budget:<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The House resolution reduces overall funding for NASA by $545 million from the President's FY07 request. It further directs specific reductions to human space flight of about $677 million and $577 million of that to come from Exploration Systems.p><hr /></blockquote> So $577M of the $545M reduction (i.e., more than 100%) is taken out of ESAS. (Side note: all "cuts" are to anticipated levels of funding for this FY, not cuts compared to funding of last year.)

radarredux · Mar 1, 2007

> It seems to me that Orion is all about "Moon Mars & Beyond". Let the commercial guys take care of LEO./i> I largely agree, but there are still at least two MAJOR issues. (1) COTS is still a risky effort with a high probability of failure. Neither Kistler or SpaceX have successfully flown any hardware yet. (2) Even if COTS does work, NASA still faces the loss of workers, contractors, and deterioration of launch facilities during the downtime.

serak_the_preparer · Mar 1, 2007

Another link: Cutbacks May Delay Flights, NASA Leader Says by Warren E. Leary (The New York Times) Sad.

docm · Mar 1, 2007

Just the opening Lockheed and Bigelow need to do an LEO jailbreak, IF they can take advantage of it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

josh_simonson · Mar 1, 2007

Yeah, I don't see how NASA could buy flights from Russia if there was a domestic company with the same capability - even at 5x the price.

gunsandrockets · Mar 1, 2007

"By the way, the $500M is actually worse than it sounds...So $577M of the $545M reduction (i.e., more than 100%) is taken out of ESAS..." Why such language was included in what was supposed to be a simple stopgap budget measure is very troubling. Taken in combination with statements by some other high-ranking members of the new majority party, I fear NASA will eventually be forced to reject the VSE policy and return to the LEO centric policy of the old administration.

gunsandrockets · Mar 1, 2007

"[Let the commercial guys take care of LEO]... but there are still at least two MAJOR issues." "(1) COTS is still a risky effort with a high probability of failure. Neither Kistler or SpaceX have successfully flown any hardware yet." Don't forget Lockheed-Martin and t/Space! They could also bid for the flight contracts, if offered. "(2) Even if COTS does work, NASA still faces the loss of workers, contractors, and deterioration of launch facilities during the downtime." This could turn out to be the bigger issue in the long run for NASA. COTS substitution of the Orion + Ares I is easy enough. But how does NASA get the shuttle-derived heavy lift they want from the expensive infrastructure and long development time of the Ares V? I think NASA should forego the 130+ tonne payload of the idealized Ares V design and turn to an easier and quicker derivative of the Shuttle system to achieve a heavy lift launcher. Improved shuttle C type 'sidemount' design for low risk shuttle derived heavy cargo launcher

gunsandrockets · Mar 2, 2007

"Keep talking up the undesigned, unfunded, unbuilt, and unflown wonder children of "free enterprise". Congress may be just about ready to give them the whole ballgame; ready or not." Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you accusing those who criticize NASA or who support private manned spaceflight are to blame if VSE is killed? Are you accusing me? And if you believe that, then what corrected course of action do you recommend to those people? To shut up? To become mindless cheerleaders of whatever NASA plans?

spacester · Mar 2, 2007

My political proposal is to take the following unifying position: We object to NASA getting screwed in the budget in her hour of need, She deserves better. Who disagrees with that? It makes no assumptions about where the money goes, it simply says that if you're screwing over NASA we don't appreciate it and the least you can do is restore the baseline 2007 funding NOW. People are just waking up to this continuing appropriations pile of doodoo and I am hoping for maybe even a little bit of outrage. Let's set aside our differences and tell Congress to NOT screw NASA over. She deserves better. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

gunsandrockets · Mar 2, 2007

"Let's set aside our differences and tell Congress to NOT screw NASA over. She deserves better." I agree. I also want to make clear my beliefs about NASA, private spaceflight, VSE and ESAS. I support NASA, private spaceflight and the VSE. I have problems with the ESAS plan and I think NASA could spend it's money more wisely, but on the other hand I don't think the ESAS plan is a disaster or a dead-end which is sure to doom NASA. The ESAS plan will work. Eventually.

Orion won't fly until early 2015

Boris_Badenov

Guest

holmec

Guest

subzero788

Guest

dreada5

Guest

spacelifejunkie

Guest

mooware

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

spacelifejunkie

Guest

PistolPete

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

docm

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

spacester

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page