Check out this great video of the successful milestones that ATK has made on Ares I, ATK Progress on NASA’s Constellation Program. Constellation’s Ares I launcher is making great progress, which makes the Administration’s efforts to end Constellation so…just other-worldly.
Tags:
aerospace, Ares, Ares I, Ares I-X, Bolden, Commercial Spaceflight Federation, Congress, Constellation, Exploration, Explore, Falcon, Falcon 1, Garver, Johnson Space Center, JSC, KSC, Mars, Moon, MSFC, NASA, Orion, rocket, Rockets, Space, Titusville
Well, apparently someone spoke a bit too soon…Florida Today, in its article, NASA Conducting Study About Shuttle, is reporting that NASA is currently looking into what issues exist for extending the Shuttle program. So far, the biggest issue isn’t whether suppliers can be found or Shuttle recertification, but money. Will Congress pay the $2.4 billion to fly the Shuttle in order to maintain our nation’s independent human spaceflight access to the Space Station?
On the plus side, any extension for Shuttle means a funding increase for Constellation, should Constellation continue. How’s that?
When NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), which laid the ground work for Project Constellation, was completed in November 2005, it called for the Shuttle to be retired in 2010 and that program’s annual fixed-costs of $1.5B [Augustine, p. 50], of which 90% is from Kennedy Space Center, Johnson Space Center’s Mission Control, the engine test stands at Stennis Space Center, and the Michoud facility in Louisiana to be inherited by Project Constellation. If Shuttle continues to fly, Constellation does not have to take-in those fixed costs and can instead use that extra $1.5B, more accurately $1.1B, for its own purposes.
This says it all…
From: "Hansen Lauri N." <---------@nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:27:22 -0800
To: ------------ <-------------@mail.nasa.gov>
Cc: Hanley Jeffrey M <--------@nasa.gov>, Thomas Dale <---------@nasa.gov>
Subject: Congratulations on a successful PDR!
Dear Team,
I wanted to extend my thanks and congratulations to all of you for an outstanding Constellation PDR. Attached are our success criteria and the summary evaluations against them, as well as the summary page. I want to share them with you, because they are significant. The final results showed that we have a sound design, and it is overall at a PDR level of maturity. We understand our risks and have good resolution plans for any open technical issues. The board was unanimous in concurring that we are ready to proceed towards CDR. In short, the team hit a home run!
The credit for the success of PDR goes to all of you. As we all know, this has been an extremely trying time. I am incredibly proud to be part of a team that could focus and maintain such an outstanding effort, despite all the distractions. Only a few of us got the privilege (punishment?) of presenting to the board, but every single one of you was a contributor to the success – whether it was performing an analysis, resolving an issue, or pulling the story together. Thank you for your effort and dedication. It was impressive, and it showed.
I know that many of you are wondering what comes next. As you all know, we have been directed to continue implementing the fy10 operating plan. You also all know that we have challenges in fy 10 due to losing the Orion cost share, the fy10 recission, etc. Of course, there are multiple ways to attack the fy10 problem, and in order to be effective the program needs to do it in an integrated manner. Therefore, we are having a management retreat this coming week to refine our strategy for the upcoming months. More to come after that.
Again, kudos for the outstanding PDR!
Lauri
Tags:
aerospace, Ares, Ares I, Bolden, Constellation, Exploration, JSC, KSC, Mars, Moon, MSFC, NASA, Orion, rocket, Space, SpaceX
According to ATK’s ATKRocketNews: The test bay @ ATK is being readied to stack segments for the 2nd full scale test fire of Ares I 5-segment solid rocket motor this fall. DM-2, as it’s called, follows the very successful DM-1 test last September and the successful Ares I-X launch last October.
Additionally, an Ares I drogue parachute drop test is scheduled for April 14th in Yuma.
Tags:
Ares, Ares I, Constellation, Exploration, JSC, Marshall Space Flight Center, MSFC, Obama, Orion, rocket, Space
According to SpaceFlight Now, which was covering today’s Falcon 9 static test fire on itsMission Status Center, SpaceX aborted the Falcon 9’s static test fire. At 1:42 PM (EST), a flash of fire and smoke was just observed at the base of the Falcon 9 rocket, but the engines did not ignite. According to Spaceflight Now, “Spectators report they heard a loud bang at the time of ignition, but no other prolonged sounds of the engine burning. Visual indications at ignition included a flash of orange light, a cloud of steam and black smoke, and a brief fire at the base of the rocket, which appeared consistent with behavior after an engine cutoff.” By 1:57 PM, SpaceX was trying to recycle for another test. But four hours later, SpaceX had released no statements or comments about today’s events.
(Via Spaceflight Now.)
Tags:
aerospace, Ares, Ares I, Bolden, Commercial, Commercial Spaceflight Federation, Constellation, COTS, Exploration, Falcon, Garver, Mars, Moon, NASA, Orion, Space, SpaceX
Paint falling off of Falcon 9
In an article in the L.A. Times, A lot is riding on SpaceX rocket, it was reported,
“The average space shuttle flight costs about $1 billion, he said. Flights from SpaceX will run around $100 million.”
Let’s go through those numbers a bit.
According to the Augustine Committee’s Final Report, p. 50, the fixed costs of the Shuttle program are $1.5B yearly and include 90% of the cost of running Kennedy Space Center, the engine test facility at Stennis Space Center, Mission Control at Johnson Space Center, and the Michoud facility in Louisiana. Certainly, SpaceX and the other commercial groups hoping to launch humans into low-earth orbit for ISS missions will have to bear some of the infrastructure costs that the Shuttle program now does.
We’re pretty sure that if NASA does fly astronauts aboard any rocket, Johnson Space Center’s Mission Control (MCC) participation will be required. Further, processing of a human spacecraft is going to involve Kennedy Space Center. In both cases, it makes no sense for each commercial launch company to build its own infrastructure to replace that of NASA’s. Not that the current Mission Control and Kennedy Space Center casts expensed under Shuttle will be born by the commercial launchers–there will be cut-backs that will lower those numbers. As to how the remaining infrastructure of Stennis and Michoud, currently paid-for by the Shuttle program, will be supported, that is something that neither NASA leader has clarified.
SpaceX does not have a great record in estimating down-stream launch costs. Just looking at the growth in the estimates for a Falcon 1 launch. In 2005, SpaceX said a Falcon 1 launch would cost $5.9 million. By 2009, that number had grown to $7 million, an increase of 18%. But the pricing growth wasn’t over last year. In February 2010, SpaceX priced a Falcon 1 launch at $8.9 million, a 50% growth over the 2005 number.
So, we doubt very much that SpaceX is going to be launching astronauts for anywhere near $100 million. Using the Falcon 1 pricing history, we would guess that at Falcon 9 launch will cost $150 million. And this is before the “NASA Cost” will be assessed, that is the cost for Mission Control and Kennedy Space Center support. And that cost is unknown.
Tags:
Bolden, Commercial, Falcon, Falcon 1, Garver, Johnson Space Center, JSC, KSC, mission control, NASA, Rockets, Space, SpaceX
Rep. David Wu -- Brent Wojahn/The Oregonian
Uh oh, this can’t be good news for NASA’s leadership and White House staffers trying to snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat. According to OregonLive.com, Rep. Wu, Chairman of the House Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, is working with other geeks in the House to over-turn the President’s proposed 2011 budget for NASA, as noted in, David Wu and space-geeks of Congress fight Obama’s NASA plan.
Representative Wu isn’t concerned so much with jobs in Texas or Florida as he is with the “potential dampening effect NASA’s new vision would have on its ability to be a catalyst for new technologies that can be broadly applied. Spurring innovation — not just in space but across society — is what Wu says he wants for a legislative legacy.”
This is not about Florida and Texas,” he said in an interview. “This is about whether Chinese or English is spoken as the dominant language of astronauts a hundred years from now. — Rep. David Wu
To say that the reception to the Administration’s plans for NASA has been…well, chilly, would be an understatement.
I cannot understand how the administration can propose such an ill-conceived decision to cancel the Constellation program without providing a compelling alternative plan with measurable goals and adequate resources.
This committee has been the most ardent supporter of NASA in the House, and yet senior agency and administration officials have managed to surprise, frustrate and anger those of us who have been your greatest advocates. — Rep. Ralph Hall of Texas
I think that what you’re doing is taking a shot in the dark. You have no way of knowing if any commercial entity will ever be able to put a man in orbit, no matter how much money you throw at them. What you’re doing is, you’re taking NASA’s manned space program and making it a faith-based initiative. — Rep. Alan Grayson
(Via OregonLive.com.)
Tags:
aerospace, Ares, Ares I, Commercial, Commercial Spaceflight Federation, Congress, Exploration, Garver, Johnson Space Center, JSC, Moon, NASA, Orion, rocket, Sierra Nevada, Space, SpaceX
Astronaut Jack Schmitt
Buzz Aldrin’s February 25 op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Trading the Moon for Mars, elicited reader letters, mostly…no, almost universally negative.
Apparently, we were not the only ones who thought Aldrin’s piece doesn’t push America’s space program in the right direction. So did Apollo 17’s Jack Schmitt, to which he responded:
Buzz Aldrin has actually traded the moon for not going to Mars. Further, he would cede the moon, its resources and human settlement to China, and leave Russia in control of our future access to Earth-orbit. NASA and the Congress’s Constellation Program, which the president proposes to cancel, was conceived, first and foremost, as a Mars exploration program. A return to the moon represents exactly what a Mars initiative needs to develop—the required launch vehicles, spacecraft technology, biomedical foundations, operational procedures and generational expertise. Using the moon as a highly beneficial step toward Mars gives us time to understand how to actually get there and land through its thin atmosphere. In the process of preparing for Mars by returning to the moon, great benefits also will accrue to science and to building the foundations for independent human settlements on both bodies. To paraphrase Mr. Aldrin, having the experience of walking on the moon’s surface on the last Apollo mission, I think the president made the wrong call.
Americans need a clear and specific goal, enough dollars, youthful motivation, and competent and courageous leaders to do great things for liberty and the nation. The president’s proposed abandonment of the Constellation Program in favor of open-ended technology development provides none of these essential ingredients. With his ongoing retrenchment and politicization of NASA, the president is signaling to the young and the world that the U.S. has withdrawn from the future of humankind in space.
Mr. Aldin’s characterization of the president’s budget as a “bold initiative” would be laughable if it did not represent such an abysmal lack of understanding of the consequences of this proposed retreat from American greatness.
Harrison H. Schmitt
Albuquerque, N.M.
Tags:
aerospace, Ares I, Commercial, Constellation, Exploration, Mars, Moon, NASA, Orion, rocket, Space, SpaceX, Titusville
It is sometimes said that if a decision has a nearly equal number of proponents and critics, it must have been a pretty good decision. Such is not the case with President Obama’s decision to cancel NASA’s Constellation program. [The Constellation program is a human spaceflight program which involves the development of spacecraft and booster vehicles to replace the Space Shuttle, with the Ares I vehicle for sending astronauts to the International Space Station and other low earth orbit missions, and the Ares V vehicle to send astronauts to the Moon and possibly to Mars as well.] The proponents say that Constellation’s demise is a good thing, because it will allow NASA to focus more of its efforts and resources on science…something that should have been at the core of its direction all along. Critics of the decision say that the cancellation is another sign of United States abrogation of its role as technological and exploration leader of the world. Both sides of the argument in this case have valid points to make, but there is far more at stake in this decision than merely the focus of NASA’s direction for the future.
Continue reading Air Force Association Against Ending Constellation
Tags:
aerospace, Air Force, Ares, Ares I, Astronaut, Bolden, Commercial, Constellation, Exploration, Explore, Mars, Moon, NASA, Orion, rocket, Space
The Final Report of the Augustine Committee, a.k.a. Review of the U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, is a lot like Big Foot–many people claim to have seen it but few are capable of describing it when asked. At the risk of Chris Buckley striking out our metaphors, the Augustine Committee’s Final Report bears much resemblance to supernatural phenomena in the way it has been accepted by those few who have read, even if just some of, it in that some see contradictions while others see logic. Yet, the 156 page Augustine Committee Final Report plays a super-sized role in the current debate over the future of NASA and our nation’s human space flight program. The Obama Administration and NewSpace movement have said the Final Report termed Project Constellation unaffordable and unsustainable while Constellation’s supporters say the Final Report intones no such claims. So, whose view is correct? Both? None?
You be the judge.
Knowing that very few of us have the time to sit-down and read the Augustine Committee’s Final Report from front to back, we have decided to bring the Final Report to you. Each day we will post bite-sized amounts, a page or a few, of the Final Report along with our interpretation. Then you can decide for yourself what the Augustine Committee’s Final Report means to you. We are doing this because an informed America is a smarter America. At the end of the day, the current decision to end our nation’s human space flight program is about ending your, The People’s, human space flight program, one paid for by tax-payers over the last 50 years. It is our hope that by going through the Final Report together, along with your comments, that all of us will finish it with at least an understanding of its content, reach some common ground on the how’s and why’s the Committee reached its conclusions, and what are those conclusions.
We will go through Chapters 1 Introduction and Chapter 2 U.S. Human Spaceflight Historical Review quickly each in a day. Beginning with Chapter 3 Goals and Future Destinations for Exploration, our pace will slow in order to allow for a thorough treatment.
Those who wish to have their own copy of the Augustine Committee’s Final Report can download a copy by clicking on this link.
Today’s edition will be the Final Report’s Chapter 1 Introduction, which begins on page 19.
HSF_Cmte_FinalReport_High_Post_1
AmericaSpace Team Notes:
The Augustine Committee was directed by the White House Science Advisor John Holdren to review NASA’s current human space flight program and offer alternatives but not plot a specific future course for human space exploration.
The Committee notes that America currently is the leader in human space flight.
Since the Apollo program, no astronaut has traveled farther than 386 miles from the Earth’s surface.
70% of Americans were born after Apollo 11.
Today, our nation faces decisions about the future of human space flight:
While a great deal has been learned in building reliable human spacecraft, this is an area that demands continued attention.
The Committee did not entertain concepts falling short in human safety.
How to explore in a way that delivers the biggest bang for the buck starts with goals. Goals -> Destinations.
The ultimate goal of human space exploration is to explore the solar system.
The primary issue formulating a human space flight plan is affordability.
Anyone thinking NASA gets too much money needs to look at Figures 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6.
Committee rhetorically asks several questions as a way to form the answer to how our nation’s space program should look.
The Committee feels that Mars is the most interesting place in the inner solar system. Of course, that was before hundreds of tons of ice was found on the Moon.
The Committee will present 5 options, 1 with Constellation and the other 4 from 3,000 potential options based on the set of parameters considered, so that a cost spectrum can be built.
The cost difference between operating in low-earth orbit and exploring beyond-earth are sizable.
Figure 1-9 is interesting. NASA’s human exploration program is viewed as somewhat to very important by 27% – 50% of Americans respectively. NASA’s space exploration program is viewed as somewhat to very relevant by 40% and 18% respectively of Americans and their family and friends.
