So what next?

[Johno]

Okay, I have tried to find some real information on the Augustine commission's recommendations.  Sadly, there's little out there[1].  What little there is is talking mostly about what it's recommending NOT to do rather than what it's recommending TO do.

So, to those of you in the know:

1) The impression I'm getting is that they're calling for the cancellation of Ares I.  Is this true or false?

2) If it's true, are they recommending anything in its place? If so, what?

3) How seriously will the Obama administration take this advice?

I'm just hoping against hope that it's not the short-sighted disaster that the media are making it look like.

*Incidentally, LO, the forum doesn't seem to like me writing a message any longer than this one.  Is this a problem with the forum or my computer?

[1] Well, there might be plenty out there, but I have no idea of where to find it!

[LunarOrbit]

You're not the first person to mention problems with longer posts. As far as I know there isn't a size limit by design, so I'll look into it.

[Homo bibiens]

I have no inside information at all about what this commission is going to say.

Is their job to provide a variety of options to the administration, corresponding to various levels of budgetary support, or are they to provide cover for a decision that has already been made?

I can find a bunch of recent opinion pieces, mostly arguing that Ares I is problem-plagued and should be canceled in favor of using improved versions of existing rockets, but most of them are not real specific about what the problems are.

[evancise]

1) The impression I'm getting is that they're calling for the cancellation of Ares I.  Is this true or false?

2) If it's true, are they recommending anything in its place? If so, what?

3) How seriously will the Obama administration take this advice?

First, this is my personal opinion/impression.
#1. This is a false pretense.  The Commission has not formally given its recommendations to the Obama Administration.  Canceling Ares I is one of many options that are being reviewed.  This is also one of many options discussed in the public meetings.  Since it deals with canceling an already-established program, the media has picked up on it and that is why it is a prominent story.

#2. The formal recommendations have not been publicly released.  The Committee will make their recommendations to a joint meeting with NASA and the Office of Space Transportation Policy (OSTP).  Then both NASA and the Administration will get some time to digest the inputs and provide additional research on the options that have been "down selected."  NASA will then provide the additional info to the White House.  At that point, the Administration will provide direction to NASA on which option (or combination of options) it should pursue as national space policy.

You need to realize that the Committee is working for the Administration and providing inputs, not direction.  The White House can do whatever it wants with the inputs, including making its own final option based off multiple versions of other options.  The White House will then need to decide whether to alter NASA's funding for the next fiscal year and beyond to support the new plan.

#3. My understanding is that Obama and the OSTP take this very seriously.  It will be very interesting to see how this plays out, especially in the short time frame that we're playing with.  Also realize that even though Obama provides NASA the direction of policy to implement it's still the Congress that must authorize the funding.  The Augustine Committee is set to brief Congress on September 15 on their recommendations.  That will probably be the first time the public hears the final recommendations from the Committee - and this will be well after the White House has gotten the inputs and started makings its decisions.

Is their job to provide a variety of options to the administration, corresponding to various levels of budgetary support, or are they to provide cover for a decision that has already been made?

A decision has definitely not been made.  My understanding is that the Committee was open to any option regardless of cost.  However they quickly stated that the President will have to consider budget limitations so they won't propose options that are budgetarily infeasible.  So don't look for anything that's too far beyond NASA's current budget.

The committee's website is http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html by the way.

Hope this helps.

Again, this is just my personal opinion...

[Simkid]

What would losing Ares I do for Orion and Ares V?  I'm guessing Orion could switch to Delta or Atlas quick enough, but would it be the end of Ares V?  Would it possibly allow faster development on V?

Personally I have the impression with I-X still scheduled for next month that it too late for switching boosters to make sense, but that it might not be the end of the program to do so...

[spacecat27]

Of course there's been a tremendous amout of speculation, conjecture; and a very wide range of opinions regarding the Augustine Commission all over the web and the real world--- and just as many guesses as to how the political scene will react to their findings.

Best synopsis I've found on where things stand now:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0909/09augustine/

It's not a happy picture; bottom line being that any meaningful exploration efforts will depend on a significant funding increase-- something I don't see coming from this administration, or even from any republican administrations that may follow.

[ijuin]

What I forsee is that fifteen years from now China is about to land men on the moon and the USA will be scrambling to catch up again like we scrambled to catch up to the Soviets when they got the first men in orbit.

[Simkid]

Looking at the summary I'm starting to wonder if things might not be so bad...

It really does seem like they are discouraging the continued current funding options, and frankly I don't think defunding NASA to any real extent is at all doable politically right now.  Just watch the fireworks in Congress if the contracts for boosters get cancelled.  It looks to me like they are also pretty heavily indicating that the ISS needs an extension past 2015 (duh, if you ask me), but that the current program can't sustain that with the $3 billion budget increase they are using as the only option given.  I'll admit that none of their options are keeping lunar landings anytime near 2020, but the options they seem to be playing up don't do anything to make development harder later...

What really stands out is the discussion of "Ares V Lite".  It seems to amount to DIRECT with less emphasis on the Shuttle derived side of things.  Frankly it looks like a great political option that doesn't even do too much damage to the program; the station is preserved past 2015 (2015 never was popular politically, with the 15 years construction, five of operation angle), Orion flys (no end of human spaceflight), and quite possibly gets back the cancelled capabilities with the heavier booster, they can keep talking about the Moon being a goal (no cuts to the "vision", but still a chance to talk about fiscal responsibility), there isn't the fallout from switching platforms completely (and putting people out of work in the process) and we even get a more or less HLLV out of the deal (probably sooner than with Ares V).  There really doesn't seem to be much of a political downside.

I don't see the problem with DIRECT/"Ares V Lite" as an HLLV, it seems to only bring Ares down to the same range as the Saturn V (which seems quite sufficient for the Moon and Mars), in any case my personal feeling on Ares I is that it's in whatever it does to get Ares V built.    As far the program goes, it hurts efficiency for orbital ops in a big way, but puts NASA in a position that Altair/EDS can start right away if/when funding appears.  All in all, I'm breathing a (little) sigh of relief.  We won't be getting to the moon for the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11, but we are still correcting the worst mistakes of the 70s.  It seems like the best we're likely to get, and probably has a better outcome than either the Apollo shutdown or the shuttle development budget cuts.

[spacecat27]

What I forsee is that fifteen years from now China is about to land men on the moon and the USA will be scrambling to catch up again like we scrambled to catch up to the Soviets when they got the first men in orbit.

A 'second space race' is a great science fiction premise; but I don't see it ever happening in reality.  Even if China announced a moon landing for next year, the general feeling in congress would be 'been there, done that; we fell for the "gotta beat the commies to the moon" line once before, it cost billions of dollars and we only got a bunch of rocks.'

That is, it doesn't seem to bother many people in DC that China is taking over ever-increasing portions of the US manufacturing base; so I don't think it would worry them to see China take space leadership as well.  Sad- but it's all about money.  Minds in Washington are very closed when it comes to science & technology, as they are mostly lawyers who do not understand it.  They certainly do not understand that a healthy space program (i.e. funding increase) would be a good shot in the arm right now for our ailing economy.



Going into Constellation under-funded, is reminiscent of going into STS with all the cuts of that time.  After the smoke cleared, it was the old 'well, some spaceflight is better than no spaceflight' compromise.  Congress enjoys wagging a finger at NASA, and science- saying 'you're lucky we're giving you this much.'

[DonPMitchell]

China going to the Moon is a joke.  They aren't even remotely close.  USA, Russia, Japan and the EU all have space technology that is far beyond them.

[Homo bibiens]

China going to the Moon is a joke.  They aren't even remotely close.  USA, Russia, Japan and the EU all have space technology that is far beyond them.

I agree that at least the USA and Russia are ahead (I don't know enough about the others to comment), but on the other hand, the US first popped someone up above the atmosphere for a few minutes in 1961, and a bit over eight years later, they landed two people on the moon.  China has already launched manned orbital missions, and they can learn from the mistakes of the Americans and the Russians.  So I would say whether they go to the moon or not is a question of whether they're willing to put the needed resources behind it.  If they do, I don't see why they couldn't do it.

[ijuin]

I think that if China gets men on the moon while the USA can't, then the politicians will see it as a matter of pride to catch up--"we can't let the communists have superior capabilities to us".

[spacecat27]

I'm just now beginning to digest this new proposal from ULA:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ula-claim-gap-reducing-solution-via-eelv-exploration-master-plan/

At first glance, I like the idea of using launch vehicles that have already been developed and have already flown.

Will be interesting to see if NASA is receptive- or if it will suffer from the "NIH" syndrome like 'Direct.'

[spacecat27]

A big deal was made of that ULA proposal last month.... for about a day. 

While it does contain some valid points- e.g.: development of a standardized 'fleet' of launch vehicles that will continually improve as flight rates increase; and their lunar lander is interesting- (similar to the old "Space 1999" TV show, some said)..... the proposal was mostly a re-hash of ideas batted about in the pre-Columbia days of SLI and OSP.
General feelings now indicate that going the ULA route would cost the same as going the Constellation route.  Personally, I think the ULA approach could lead to a stronger, more flexible space launch infrastructure, but I doubt NASA nor national leadership would see it that way.

"So what next?"

In gossip I see across the web, many seem to have forgotten that the Augustine Commission is not a decision-making body; it is an advisory body.  The've pretty much concluded their work, but that doesn't mean there will be a decision from above any time soon. Brief statements from Bolden, and even Obama, indicate they'd like to see an expanded, progressive, 'inspiring' space program- but right now- the economy is in shambles, the international situation is a powderkeg, and domestically there seems to be more interest in tampering with health care.  I think space is about to be put on the back burner.... ignored; given no direction or decision until the last possible moment- when STS retires.  Then, we'll probably see some compromise; loosely based on conclusions from Augustine.

[Johno]

It strikes me that after successfully testing the Ares I (and I am well aware that we're not talking about a real test, but a cardboard cut out that LOOKS a little like an Ares I! ), it would be tricky in Peoria to cancel the program.  As far as most people are concerned it would look pretty much like "Okay, it works.  Now cancel it."

Needless to say Mr and Mrs Average would be somewhat flummoxed . . .