NASA Shuttle Replacement's Problems Are Worsening

ausoleil noted that NASA's replacement for the shuttle, the Orion, is slipping behind schedule "'We're probably going to have to move our target date,' NASA exploration chief Doug Cooke told The Associated Press on Wednesday after Nasawatch.com posted the 117-page internal status report (PDF) on the moon program. The cost problems include an $80 million overrun on a motor system. The Orion spacecraft's design remains too heavy for the proposed Ares 1 rocket. Software development, heat shield testing and other complex work remain behind schedule or over budget. There are dozens of such serious challenges, many of which are 'worsening.'"

yeah, that's right. i'm not a rocket scientist

but i'll play one on slashdot and come up with all kinds of rubber band and duct tape solutions and act like my 11th grade physics class bests nasa engineers.

wait, my friends, you'll see tons of posts just like this except for that the posters take themselves seriously.

Re:yeah, that's right. i'm not a rocket scientist

but i'll play one on slashdot and come up with all kinds of rubber band and duct tape solutions

You mean like the ones that saved Apollo 13 [wikipedia.org]? IIRC the solution to the problem of running out of breathable air involved rubber bands and duct tape.

Re:yeah, that's right. i'm not a rocket scientist

IIRC the solution to the problem of running out of breathable air involved rubber bands and duct tape.

Because duct tape can be bought on any budget. Hell, it better be the first thing on the budget. Hell, it's probably holding the budget together.

Re:yeah, that's right. i'm not a rocket scientist

I'm not sure the problem is so much technical as process: the Orion is a "Cost Plus" contract.

Cost plus is always likely to see cost overruns and major delays. The more expensive and the longer it takes, the more the contractors make. There's no motivation to be on time and under budget.

Fortunately for NASA

There are alternatives [spacex.com].

Look, does this news really come as a surprise? NASA's been over-budget and behind schedule since the last Apollo flight. Without the unlimited checkbook that Mercury/Gemini/Apollo had, this should be expected.

Unlimited budgets have a way of clearing all obstacles in their path.

Re:Fortunately for NASA

The post office is, roughly, a crown corporation. It operates under a government mandate and follows some special rules regarding taxes, but it has been self funded for quite a long time now.

Gap?

How long will there be no active US manned spacecraft - and will this get longer?
I am reminded of the gap between Apollo and the Shuttle - and look at what happened to Skylab...

Re:Gap?

This is expected, though. Since when do projects half this scale go as planned? I just hope the Americans get their shit together and give Orion the funding it needs.

Actually this kind of cost overrun is absolutely planned.

You'd do it too, if faced with this alternative:

• Propose to congress a project which will cost $40B, be truthful about the cost, and be rejected; or
• Propose to congress a project which will cost $40B, lie and say it will cost $15B, and be approved. Later the cost will rise but Congress will not care, or will commit the "sunk cost fallacy".

If you cared *nothing* for your country but just wanted to run a big project, then you would lie, get the money, and do the project. On the other hand, if you cared *dearly* for your country, and knew it needed a space program, then you would lie, get the money, and do the project.

Ah well.

I am finally at peace with this. What I will never be at peace with, however, is the fact that the space program is a mere drop in the bucket of market-distorting federal transfer payments.

Re:Gap?

This is expected, though. Since when do projects half this scale go as planned? I just hope the Americans get their shit together and give Orion the funding it needs.

Somebody-or-others-law:

A poorly planned project takes three times as long to complete as scheduled.

A well planned project only takes twice as long.

What has happened to us?

We seemed more adventurous and capable in the 1960s than we are in 2008. Is this what has become of the great spacefaring nation that so many before us had envisioned? Despite serious technological advancements, have we lost our momentum? Maybe it was a passion for the unknown that enabled us before. I fear it has been replaced by disinterested private contractors, underfunding, and ambivalence. More so if this shuttle replacement isn't successful.

Re:What has happened to us?

There's two major problems:

1. Less funding. For as much as we use it as a dick wagging competition neither party has a real interest in seeing a very robust space program when those dollars could go to buying off voters with more useless ventures that put cash in the right pockets.

2. Speaking of dick wagging competitions, we've lost our main rival. While the argument could be made that the Chinese are going to beat us up in the space race in another couple of decades, most people just aren't that interested. The space race is no longer a spectator sport since Crazy Ivan is now regarded as either friendly or impotent. The same Joe Sixpacks who shell out hundreds to thousands of dollars each year on their favorite football team were keeping interest in the space program alive when it was competitive. They love The Right Stuff, they yawn at 2001.

Re:What has happened to us?

Let's also be clear that the need to put humans in space seems not so obvious any more. We have fleets of robots exploring other planets with less cost and less risk. To me, human exploration of space at this time seems like a waste. Right now the human space program seems more like a corporate boondoggle than anything else. Of course it is over budget, that is the whole point - to spend a lot of taxpayer money!

With robots you can take more risk and spend more money. And, I'm not saying that humans shouldn't go into space, it just seems like right now we should be focused on exploration, which is better served with robots.

The Intermediate Solution

NASA has reported that the delay and the budget crunch has forced it to reconsider a prior option that will now be built on the shores of Cocoa Beach, FL. It will include two one hundred foot towers with a very elastic synthetic band extending between them. A state of the art human reclining space momentum chair will be attached in the middle to propel future explorers into space...or some where father out into the Atlantic Ocean.

Re:The Intermediate Solution

This solution contains rubber bands, but is detrimentally lacking in duct tape.

Shocker!!!!!!

Engineering of a very complex systems overrunning budget and schedule limits and this is news?

News would be if they were under budget and finished a year early.

you get what you pay for

and we haven't paid for much of a space program for several decades now. All that engineering knowledge has slowly, and literally, died as engineers have retired. Sending a handful of people to earth orbit every year is not exploration - any focus on anything other than how to advance human beings as rapidly as possible to every body in the solar system is simply spending money without garnering public desire to pay for more of it. We need people going places, and waiting five decades to get around to making it happen has wasted away all the good will those who write the checks had for doing this business.

Re:you get what you pay for

I'm astounded at the number of people on a nerd site (of all places) who take "old sayings" unquestionably.

Whoever believes that "you get what you pay for" has never prepaid for sex, or used an unlicensed contractor for home repairs. You usually pay for what you get, but you don't always get what you pay for. Often a higher priced item will be inferior to a lower priced item. Only a fool buys item A because it costs more than item B. Seller B may be trying to get market share.

Money doesn't grow on trees, you know. Oh wait - yes, it does. It not only grows on trees, it grows on cornstalks and soybean bushes and all sorts of other plants.

There's no such thing as a free lunch... excuse me, grandma's calling. What, grandma? Sure, I'll come over for lunch.

Nothing free is worthwhile. Except maybe air. And rain. And those dandelion leaves in that expensive salad you just bought. Someone gave me some tomato plants, and guess what? Home grown tomatos are vastly superior to the ones I bought. Yes, It took fifteen minutes physical labor to plant them and I'll have to pick the tomatos, but that's not a cost, it's a benefit. I work at a desk job and don't get much exersize. Meanwhile I pay a fee for the gym.

My dad always said "don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see". I think he's right, and I think it goes double for those incredibly stupid old sayings. Don't take anything on face value; at least give it half a thought.

Meh.

You should see the contortions Grumman had to go through, to get the Lunar Module under the mission weight budget, well into the Apollo Program.

I figure the only thing that's changed between now and then is the Internet makes it much easier for the lay public to form entirely the wrong impression about highly complex and technical works-in-progress.

Why the Ares I?

There are existing commercial launch vehicles such as the Delta IV or Atlas V rockets that can be man rated or the potential upcoming commercial launch vehicles such as the SpaceX Falcon 9 that could replace Ares I. Although man rating isn't trivial it's insane for NASA to create a new rocket to compete with existing commercial launch vehicles. NASA should encourage making manned access to low Earth orbit a low cost commercial commodity rather than using government resources to discourage such access.

In fact, NASA should contract with two independent suppliers capable of lifting the CEV to low Earth orbit and buy launch vehicles from each supplier in near equal quantities. This would add some expense, but it would make sure that should a launch accident occur our manned space program isn't grounded for years as complex accident investigations occur and fixes are implemented on the failed launch vehicle.

The Ares I is an albatross that only exists because of pride and politics. It is harmful to the exact type of space development that this nation needs. In the early 60's NASA didn't lose any face by choosing to re-purpose ICBMs for the Mercury and Gemini programs. Instead, out of necessity, NASA it's rocket building teams on the Saturn series of rockets. It was the practical decision then and it is the practical decision to re-purpose existing vehicles now for LEO access.

If NASA wants to build a launcher (and whether they should be building any is a very debatable) then they should be concentrating exclusively on the Ares V/VI which actually goes somewhere and does something that commercial space companies may not be able to do economically today.

Re:Why the Ares I? -- Uhh, payload?

Did you look at how much payload each rocket can take to orbit before you made this post? Look at the payload capacity to GTO (not LEO)

Let me list the estimated maximum payloads since you did not:
Delta IV: 20,000 pounds or so
Atlas V: 18,000 pounds or so
SpaceX Falcon 9: 27,000 pounds or so
Ares I: 50,000 pounds or so

See the difference? Ares I is also rated for man-flight, which just makes everything much more complicated.

The article is from a florida newspaper. Of course florida newspapers are going to print doom stories because they don't want to lose Shuttle business. Losing business happens.

Re:Just wait

Just set up a national tip jar on something akin to PayPal.
Citizens actually want to fund space activities, not the stuff that's killing us: http://perotcharts.com/ [perotcharts.com]
Dis-intermediating DC is step #1 in carrying out the will of the people.

Re:Just wait

I think you're confusing Ares I [wikipedia.org] and Ares V [wikipedia.org]. Ares I isn't all that big. It's a single stack of capsule -> fuel tank -> stage 2 engine -> stage 1 solid rocket booster. If anything, it's quite a bit thinner than most rockets. However, it does make up for this by towering a massive 94m high. Which does mean a few upgrades to the scaffolding.

The Ares V, however, she's gonna be a beasty. With six (!) main engines, two outboard Solid Rocket Boosters, a plump width of 10m on the central stack, and a towering 116m tall, she's going to put every other rocket to shame. Personally, I can't wait. ;-)

Re:Did we really make it to the moon?

Sure sure. Sounds great.

Now, just initial here that the 2008 mandatory stress testing has been done on each component, OSHA has approved the ergonomics of the seats, all modern safety systems are in place...and...hello? Where are you going?

No one (with power in NASA or gov't) is interested in getting back to the moon without a billion rules, regulations, and safety measures.

Re:Did we really make it to the moon?

No one (with power in NASA or gov't) is interested in getting back to the moon without a billion rules, regulations, and safety measures.

Also consider that astronauts were looked on as rough and tough guys doing their national duty in the days of Apollo. Today they're seen as geeks wasting cash on expensive toys.

Re:I'm outraged?

The cost problems include an $80 million overrun on a motor system

Well, that's sucks I guess. But since NASA has something like a $17 billion budget, isn't that a colossal non-issue? I realize this was just the motor system, but if I had a $40,000 budget to furnish a new home, I don't think I would be concerned if the coffee table was $20 more than I was expecting.

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
"NASA's current FY 2008 budget of $17.318 billion represents about 0.6% of the $2.9 trillion United States federal budget."

I'll let the reader come to his own conclusions about US priorities. Without linking to the DoD budget.