U.S. Human Spaceflight is dead for the next two decades.

[MKSheppard]

LockMart pulls 600 people off Orion CEV

Orion becomes a liability as Lockheed Martin pull 600 engineers off the contract
June 6th, 2010 by Chris Bergin

Orion’s role of transporting US astronauts into space has been reduced to little more than an assumption it may one day be involved in human space exploration, after contractor Lockheed Martin effectively washed its hands of the project due to fears relating to termination liability. With key procurements cancelled, the Denver-based company ‘moved’ 600 engineers off the project, effectively leaving the vehicle in limbo.

Orion Status:

Although the Program Of Record (POR) remains in place – due to the lack of Congressional approval for the much-maligned FY2011 budget proposal – NASA managers have effectively given up on any faint hope of implementing the long-term strategy that was centered around the marriage between Ares and Orion.

Orion was set to transport US astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), and eventually on to destinations such as the moon and Mars, although the Augustine Commission’s report showed the architecture was on an “unsustainable path”, due to funding constraints and the resulting schedule delays, some of which were notably caused by continuous design changes – mainly driven by the shortcomings of the Ares I launch vehicle.

Both Ares and Orion were cancelled in President Obama’s FY2011 budget, prior to a token reprieve for a “dumbed down” Orion, know as the Crew Rescue Vehicle (CRV) – to be utilized as a lifeboat on the ISS, despite an already implemented evacuation plan via the use of two Soyuz vehicles, a plan that enables an ISS crew of six to depart from the Station in the event of an emergency.

As to how much work is being conducted on Orion as a CRV is unclear, given the vehicle has now suffered a double body blow – firstly via the removal of the majority of Orion work with NASA via the initial defunding action, which in turn sent work and funding to aid contractor Lockheed Martin’s efforts.

“Cx (Constellation) funding is being pulled back, that was going to JSC (Johnson Space Center) engineering, and being sent to Denver to support LM similar facilities/services,” noted a NASA memo in March, with sources noting the remaining Orion teams outside of Lockheed Martin have been vastly reduced in numbers, to the point some of the remaining engineers have become demoralized and have left for companies such as Bigelow.

The second blow is related to the billions of dollars it will cost to cancel the POR, with specific concerns at Lockheed Martin on the estimated value of contractor work required to close out the contract – otherwise known as termination liability.

The fallout has resulted in the removal of 600 workers from the Orion project at Lockheed Martin, its sub-contractors, along with a ripple effect being impacted the non-prime workforce.

“Given the revised interpretation of how to account for termination liability, LM and its subs will be moving 600 people off the contract. Also LM has halted several key procurements,” noted Orion manager Mark Geyer in an address to his workforce, which was acquired by L2.

While the language uses terms such as “moving” and “reducing”, Mr Geyer appears to intimate an actual loss of employment will be suffered via the fallout.

“Another fallout of this issue is that reductions in non-prime are also coming. These are all members of the team and have been a part of our successes and struggles over the last four years. Our thoughts are with them and their families as they have to deal with this reality,” Mr Geyer noted.

“There were no easy solutions left under the constraints we have been given. Despite all of these challenges and personal impacts, I am continually impressed by the dedication and creativity applied by the team to get through this difficult time. Even with these challenges we continue to move forward doing critically important work.”

As Mr Geyer alluded to, some work will continue with Orion. Also, despite the reductions suffered by Orion, he believes some stability – albeit at a reduced funding level – may be in the pipeline, via his opinion that the FY2011 budget proposal will remain in limbo, resulting in a continuing resolution, which he notes mirrors the level of funding Constellation is currently being drip-fed.

“This reduced funding level will put us near the level consistent with a continuing resolution for 2011 (which I understand is likely for much of 2011),” he added. “Therefore, while we are not out of the woods yet, I expect to see more stability after this latest round of cuts. We will be putting out guidance targets and content descriptions for us to update 2010 and plan for 2011.”

The Orion manager is also holding on to some hope that the vehicle may still grow into the crew transport it was intended to be, as the CRV effort at least avoids the full cancellation of Orion.

“Given the fact that Orion is in the 2010 appropriations and has been mentioned by the President in his KSC speech, it is certainly reasonable to assume that Orion (in some form) will emerge from this debate as the spacecraft that will take us to the new frontiers of human space exploration,” Mr Geyer added.

“Our near term task is to put the United States in the best position to have this system ready when needed.”

However, the Constellation Program (CxP) finds itself all-but muted when it comes to such aspirations, as seen via the removal of Cx manager Jeff Hanley – who was the only person making a concerted effort to find a potential backup plan which utilized Orion via a change to the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicle configuration, an Ares IV type vehicle that also allowed for growth into a Heavy Lift Vehicle (HLV).

Mr Hanley’s removal from CxP was greeted with shock – as seen with the comments made on the forwarded e-mails of the news throughout NASA and its contractors, although Mr Geyer used his address to simply praise the departed manager.

“Jeff provided extraordinary leadership to the Constellation Program which has led to the amazing accomplishments we have achieved. Jeff has given all of his professional energy and commitment to this enterprise. I have enormous respect for his clear thinking, creative problem solving, great strategic sense, and personal integrity. He is also a great friend.”

“We will honor Jeff’s contribution by continuing to advance the exploration dream that we all have.”

Mr Geyer also welcomed Mr Hanley’s replacement, whilst noting the design phase name for the Orion CRV as Block 0. The ISS Orion was known as Block I, while the Orion that was to transport crew past Low Earth Orbit (LEO) was known as Block II.

“Dale Thomas will be acting Cx program manager. I have worked with Dale for many years and he is a consummate professional and highly qualified for this job. Also, in my discussions with Dale and (ESMD manger) Doug Cooke, I have been assured that we should remain on the plan we have including implementing the block 0 strategy. Thanks again for your dedication and hard work.”

------------------------------------

Blegh we're fucked. The Chinese will own the future of spaceflight.

[The Romulan Republic]

This thread's title is somewhat inaccurate:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=142920

No, the current situation isn't great, but it could be a lot worse.

[MKSheppard]

You'll note i said HUMAN spaceflight. Want to be the first person up on a Falcon 9 -- on a re-entry capsule designed by Musk and Co?

[The Romulan Republic]

You'll note i said HUMAN spaceflight. Want to be the first person up on a Falcon 9 -- on a re-entry capsule designed by Musk and Co?

If you're trying to suggest that their are safety issues with the design in question, please elaborate with something more specific.

And in any case, this is not the only possible private sector design, of course.

[MKSheppard]

If you're trying to suggest that their are safety issues with the design in question, please elaborate with something more specific.

SpaceX's heat shield design is laughable; their rockets are horribly unreliable; they run everything on a shoestring, etc.

And in any case, this is not the only possible private sector design, of course.

OSC has been doing things very low key; but they also face the same issue about man-rating a capsule -- making a manned spacecraft is very time and money intensive if you want a safe reliable spacecraft. And both SpaceX and OSC are trying to develop both the booster AND the capsule; splitting their money and R&D time.

Why NASA rejected the other COTS designs which would have used existing capsules or designs on top of new boosters in favor of an all new stack, I have no damn idea.

[Simon_Jester]

SpaceX's heat shield design is laughable; their rockets are horribly unreliable; they run everything on a shoestring, etc.

We know Falcon 1 was unreliable. So were the early Atlas rockets. That didn't stop people from going into space on Atlas a few years later.

If I were you, I'd wait for a string of Falcon 9 failures before I started calling them unreliable. As opposed to saying so after they just tested an orbit-capable booster and got it to work right on the first try.

Now, I can't speak to their heat shield designs, but I don't think we're in a good position to condemn their reliability record.

[MKSheppard]

We know Falcon 1 was unreliable. So were the early Atlas rockets. That didn't stop people from going into space on Atlas a few years later.

The fact that we were in a technological cold war arms race with the Soviets, and the legacy of a dead president drove us to take a hell of a lot of shortcuts to meet his unrealistic deadlines.

Back then, a 1 in 4 chance of losing some one in a launch was acceptable -- this was the era where 30~ guys died EACH YEAR at Edwards AFB flying experimental planes.

Now? Not acceptable.

If I were you, I'd wait for a string of Falcon 9 failures before I started calling them unreliable. As opposed to saying so after they just tested an orbit-capable booster and got it to work right on the first try.

A lot of other companies got to this point, and then folded.

Link

[eion]

SpaceX's heat shield design is laughable; their rockets are horribly unreliable; they run everything on a shoestring, etc.

What exactly do you find "laughable" about the Dragon's heat shield? As I understand it, they are using PICA (Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator) which has been used on the fastest man-made object to reenter the Earth's Atmosphere (The Stardust Sample Return Capsule), and is far less dense than carbon phenolic, and since the heat shield is only being designed for reentry from LEO it is understandable that it is being designed with lower weight than Apollo, STS, or Orion heat shields.

Falcon 1 had some reliability problems, but so far the Falcon 9 is a 100% launch success . Perhaps they've sorted out the reliability problems.

In terms of being untested, that's simply not true for the Dragon. Docking is controlled by the Station, so that checks out. The docking approach system was tested on STS-127, and it passed. The advantage of designing a cargo system that can be easily upgraded to a manned-system should be self-evident. It means that every one of your successful cargo launches can be used to refine your manned system and makes the whole system more reliable without added expensive test-only missions.

As for maximizing profits, you can hardly blame a private company for doing that, and they're in good company. United Launch Alliance (A joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin) is pretty much the only game in town for U.S. built heavy-launch vehicles. You really think a monopoly is the best way to keep costs down? SpaceX had to design their own capsule and booster because in the first case there aren't any U.S. made manned capsules being built right now, what did you want them to do, buy from the Russians? And in the second case, if they tried to buy an Atlas V or Proton or whatever they'd never be able to control costs effectively.

[Simon_Jester]

The fact that we were in a technological cold war arms race with the Soviets, and the legacy of a dead president drove us to take a hell of a lot of shortcuts to meet his unrealistic deadlines.

Another factor is that we, you know, debugged the rocket. Today, the modern descendants of the early Atlas rockets are much, much more reliable. Debugging is an important part of any process- initial failures tell us what we need to know to achieve success later on. The Falcon 1 rocket crapped out on its first three of five trials; hopefully SpaceX learned something. The fact that their first Falcon 9 launch succeeded is a good sign in that respect, though obviously far from proof of reliability.

If I were you, I'd wait for a string of Falcon 9 failures before I started calling them unreliable. As opposed to saying so after they just tested an orbit-capable booster and got it to work right on the first try.

A lot of other companies got to this point, and then folded.

The fact that the company may yet fold doesn't make the rocket unreliable. The rocket is not unreliable until it has been proven to fail. Even then, it is not somehow permanently stained by the sin of unreliability; it can be redesigned into something better.

I don't consider SpaceX to be a viable replacement for the whole US manned space program. That would be stupid. But I don't think their efforts should be deemed a failure before we've given them a chance to try... as you seem to be doing.

[Stark]

Buzz Aldrin's Race into Space should have demonstrated that rockets exploding can be quite informative in any case.

[PeZook]

Buzz Aldrin's Race into Space should have demonstrated that rockets exploding can be quite informative in any case.

Actually not, because in BARIS a rocket exploding meant you got a gigantic hit to reliability ratings for some reason.

[MKSheppard]

I find it hilarious that Obama, after passing some of the largest fucking spending bills in history -- yay healthcare -- yay spendulus -- is now demanding that government agencies cut their budgets by 4-5% in the coming years -- it's a pathetic attempt to pander to the Tea Partiers -- since any savings he achieves from that 4-5% cut is far far outweighed by his massive spending bills.

But anway:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/me ... m10-20.pdf

"Your agency is required to identify the programs and subprograms that have the lowest impact on your agency's mission and constitute at least five percent of your agency's discretionary budget. This information should be included with your FY 2012 budget submission, but is a separate exercise from the budget reduction necessary to meeting the target for your agency's FY 2012 discretionary budget request"

BLOOD BATH INBOUND.

[K. A. Pital]

Who could've thought that the rotting corpse of my nation would end up becoming a monopolist on ISS crew rotation. It's a sad laugh if anything.

Of course, Russia is all so proud that "Soyuz is so reliable", etc. Forgetting that it's only an 8-7-ton LEO delivery at best. Whilst Energia with it's enormous 100+ LEO delivery capabilities was utterly lost and the new "Angara" family is just a fucking joke compared to the Energia project, not having any superior capabilities relative to such rockets as Proton. Heh.

I wouldn't say "U.S. human spaceflight is dead" - space exploration is suffering an overall fucking huge major setback in the last 20 years. Utterly huge. Too bad the PRC is only replicating the USSR's steps in space - man, space station... they should try and move faster.

[MKSheppard]

Link

By Robert Block Orlando Sentinel Space Editor

CAPE CANAVERAL – In a surprise move, NASA has told the major contractors working on its troubled Constellation moon rocket program that they are in violation of federal spending rules — and must immediately cut back work by nearly $1 billion to get into compliance.

As many as 5,000 jobs from Utah to Florida are expected to be lost over the next month.

The effect of the directive, which went out to contractors earlier this week and which Congress was told about on Wednesday, may accomplish something that President Barack Obama has sought since February: killing Constellation’s system of rockets, capsules and lunar landers that has already cost at least $9 billion to date.

The decision caps a bitter, three-month behind-the-scenes battle between aerospace giants and NASA managers over who is responsible for covering the costs of dismantling the Constellation program. The fight has dragged in members of Congress and the White House — and has dramatically raised the stakes in the struggle over the future of the country’s human spaceflight program.

At issue is the federal Anti-Deficiency Act that requires all federal contractors to set aside a portion of their payments to cover costs in case the project is ever cancelled.

New NASA calculations say contractors are $991 million short of what they must withhold – and the agency has ordered the companies to find that money from the roughly $3.5 billion they’re budgeted to get for Constellation projects this year.

In a letter to Congress released Wednesday, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said: “Given this estimated shortfall, the Constellation program cannot continue all of its planned … program activities [this year] within the resources available. Under the Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA), NASA has no choice but to correct this situation.”

The biggest loser is Utah-based Alliant Techsystems Inc, or ATK, which is building the first stage of the Ares I rocket – Constellation’s centerpiece that was supposed to take astronauts to the International Space Station and ultimately the moon.

According to NASA, the company’s termination costs total $500 million – the most for any contractor working on the program – and will result in the immediate cutoff of any funds going to Ares I.

Other large companies affected include Lockheed Martin ($350 million); Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne ($48 million); and Boeing ($81 million). “Many of these reductions will be implemented via reductions in workforce … primarily affecting Texas, Alabama, Colorado, Utah, and Florida,” NASA told Congress, but it did not include a breakdown by state of job losses.

“It is the responsibility of the contractor, not the government, to ensure its costs and obligations are managed appropriately,” said NASA spokesman Bob Jacobs. “NASA has no choice but to take this corrective action.”

Contractors, especially ATK, have maintained to NASA and to members of Congress that historically NASA has not required them to withhold termination money and that therefore they should not be forced to cover the shortfall.

Members of Congress from states that will be hardest hit, including Utah and Alabama, support ATK and other contractors. They accuse the administration of using the federal spending rules to undermine a congressional prohibition – passed last year – that blocks NASA from holding back any contract payments for Constellation in this fiscal year.

“This latest attempt by the administration to force an early termination of the Constellation program is nothing more than a disingenuous legal maneuver to circumvent statutory language that was put in place to prevent this very type of action,” said U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah. “Hurting our national defense capabilities and industrial base are examples of the long-term collateral damage that will come as a result of this administration’s destructive and dangerous political agenda.”

NASA spokesman Jacobs rejected charges that the decision was a backdoor effort to cancel Constellation, saying that the agency is legally compelled to cut back spending now, no matter what happens to the program.

The Obama administration has wanted to cancel most of Constellation since last fall when a White House blue-ribbon commission concluded the program was “unsustainable,” well over budget and as much as a decade behind schedule.

The administration seeks instead to outsource rides to the space station to private rocket companies while revamping NASA to focus on longer-term technology development. Following Obama’s budget proposal in February, the agency ordered the program’s main contractors to show proof they had had set aside termination costs as required under law.

According to NASA officials, Bolden has prioritized the areas of the program that should not be cut. These include advanced technology work on the Orion space capsule, the J2X rocket engine that was to power the Ares I second stage and any hardware that could be used for other programs.

NASA chief financial officer Beth Robinson told members of Congress that contractors had “erroneously assumed” that they didn’t have to set aside any funds to cover the program’s cancellation and instead put everything they had into production of the various systems. But she also admitted that NASA did not manage the contractors properly.

Privately officials are pointing fingers at former NASA administrator Michael Griffin, the architect of the Constellation program, for turning a blind eye to termination liability requirements in order to try to sink as much money as possible into the program to make it harder to cancel.

NASA officials said they assume there will be investigations ordered by Congress in coming months.

[MKSheppard]

This is now basically total war between the Administration and supporters of manned space flight. Things are getting dirty very fast.

[MKSheppard]

To elaborate more: NASA is NOT an Executive Branch Agency. It's been that since the beginning, when it was created by Congressional Action.

POTUS can appoint NASA Admin and Deputy Admin, but overall oversight is held by Congress, which is authorized to examine the decisions and actions of the NASA Administrator and the managers who answer to the executives who work at NASA HQ.

[Simon_Jester]

I find it hilarious that Obama, after passing some of the largest fucking spending bills in history -- yay healthcare -- yay spendulus -- is now demanding that government agencies cut their budgets by 4-5% in the coming years -- it's a pathetic attempt to pander to the Tea Partiers -- since any savings he achieves from that 4-5% cut is far far outweighed by his massive spending bills.

I don't know if he seriously intends to force those budget cuts or not, though at this point I'm disappointed enough in Obama to believe it.

Who could've thought that the rotting corpse of my nation would end up becoming a monopolist on ISS crew rotation. It's a sad laugh if anything.

Just goes to show that even zombie-communism is better than 2010-style American kleptocapitalism...

Of course, Russia is all so proud that "Soyuz is so reliable", etc. Forgetting that it's only an 8-7-ton LEO delivery at best.

Well, it's legitimate to be proud of the fact that it works and that unlike us you guys aren't dumb enough to cancel a system that works in favor of vaporware that doesn't.

[PeZook]

Just goes to show that even zombie-communism is better than 2010-style American kleptocapitalism...

Let's not get carried away here. It's better at this spaceflight thingie (because the Soyuz is a matter of national pride for an impoverished nation), but come on

All in all, even cutting NASA entirely won't really destroy America, just ruin space exploration a lot (NASA doesn't just do flashy rocket launches, they actually develop a lot of things like sensor and experiment packages for many people who run their own programs)

For example, the Chadrayaan (fuck, I probably made a spelling mistake there) probes made their lunar discoveries with NASA-provided instrumentation.

[phongn]

All in all, even cutting NASA entirely won't really destroy America, just ruin space exploration a lot (NASA doesn't just do flashy rocket launches, they actually develop a lot of things like sensor and experiment packages for many people who run their own programs)

For example, the Chadrayaan (fuck, I probably made a spelling mistake there) probes made their lunar discoveries with NASA-provided instrumentation.

You can consider NASA to be three groups in one (and who fight for the same pool of money).

1. R&D - a legacy of the old NACA. They do a lot of fundamental research in aerospace.
2. Unmanned space. They do all the fancy probes and such and generally will launch on commercial spacecraft.
3. Manned space. Shuttle/ISS/etc.

#2 is probably going to be the winner here under Obama's plans; #1 may get some more funding as well. #3 is dying. So, unmanned exploration and such is probably safe.

[MKSheppard]

And our idiot in chief proves he's even more of a fucking idiot

Link

President Barack Obama called the situation in the Gaza Strip “unsustainable” after he and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas met in an effort to restore momentum to the peace process.

Obama announced the U.S. will provide $400 million in aid for housing, school construction and other infrastructure improvements in Gaza and the West Bank to help improve the “day-to-day life” of Palestinians.

Considering that Constellation is $900m over budget; putting that money into NASA would be far more useful than pouring it down the rathole of Gaza, where it will just get blown up in four years by the Israelis.

We can spend nearly half a billion on a bunch of idiots who can't even make peace; or we can spend it on THIS.

Which do you want?

Flipping on the news sometime in the next decade to hear about how a hospital we built for $150m in Gaza was blown up by the Israelis; or the words "Altair, you are go for TLI."

[The Romulan Republic]

I would rather Obama funded both, frankly, and freed up the money by legalizing Marijuana and freeing everyone currently incarcerated for possessing it.

I can dream, can't I?

[eion]

I say we solve both problems by offering the total populations of Israel and Palestine the right to establish a colony on Mars under U.S. direction & funding. Obama thinks of a number between 1 and 10, and whoever gets closer wins.

Done and done, and I mean done.

[J]

And our idiot in chief proves he's even more of a fucking idiot <snip>

If you want depressing, imagine what could be done with all this bailout money.

[Coyote]

Frankly, China has earned the right to lead in space. And if Russia, Europe and Japan want to jump to the head of the line as well, I can't argue against it. We have truly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

So long, US space flight. You were awesome when we had you.

[Skylon]

We know Falcon 1 was unreliable. So were the early Atlas rockets. That didn't stop people from going into space on Atlas a few years later.

The fact that we were in a technological cold war arms race with the Soviets, and the legacy of a dead president drove us to take a hell of a lot of shortcuts to meet his unrealistic deadlines.

Unrealistic? The goal: Moon. When: End of Decade. Task Accomplished: July, 1969.

There were a ton of bumps along the way, and some risky moves (Apollo 8 possibly was the most risky spaceflight flown until STS-1). But how can you call the goal unrealistic when it was accomplished?