NASA's Human Spaceflight boss hits eject a week before SpaceX crew launch
- Reference: 1589975945
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/05/20/nasas_human_spaceflight_boss_hits/
- Source link:
Loverro's predecessor, [1]William Gerstenmaier , lasted 14 years in the role before reassignment. Gerstenmaier went on to join SpaceX earlier this year.
Back then, former astronaut Ken Bowersox picked up the reins in the interim and Bowersox, Loverro's deputy, has been put in charge once again.
The timing is jaw-dropping. The first commercial crew launch is due on 27 May, and Loverro was to have taken part in tomorrow's flight readiness review for the mission.
The reasons for Loverro's departure are unclear, and The Register has contacted the US space agency to learn more and will update if NASA responds. Certainly, there was no obvious indication that he was about to fall on his sword. His social media orifices were positively spurting with Artemis excitement, as one would expect, up until 18 May.
In a letter to the HEO team leaked to the [2]Washington Post , Loverro admitted to a mistake made in a choice earlier in the year, taken "because I judged it necessary to fulfil our mission." The result was a resignation from the agency, effective 18 May.
The move blindsided agency insiders and lawmakers alike. Member of the United States House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Kendra Horn, expressed significant unease at the turn of events, so close to the SpaceX Demo-2 launch.
I am deeply concerned over this sudden resignation, especially eight days before the first scheduled launch of US astronauts on US soil in almost a decade. Under this Administration, we’ve seen a pattern of abrupt departures that have disrupted our efforts at human space flight. [3]https://t.co/27pJgSaPXn — Congresswoman Kendra Horn (@RepKendraHorn) [4]May 19, 2020
Firing up the speculatogun, there are any number of choices made during Loverro's short time in the post that might have come back to bite him, particularly as he sought to push the agency forward to that 2024 Moon landing goal. He was recently involved in the decision [5]to select three commercial companies , SpaceX, Dynetics and Blue Origin, to land humans on the lunar surface and in April tweeted his satisfaction at Boeing's decision [6]to re-fly its Calamity Capsule .
"Corporate responsibility," he said back then, "takes many forms, and this is one of them."
As, it appears, does responsibility in public service. ®
[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/16/space_round_up/
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/19/nasas-human-spaceflight-chief-resigns-week-before-first-launch-astronauts-decade/
[3] https://t.co/27pJgSaPXn
[4] https://twitter.com/RepKendraHorn/status/1262889599564763137?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[5] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/05/01/lunar_lander/
[6] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/04/07/space_roundup/
Re: Going while the going's good
Dragon isn't really comparable with the SLS though.
Unfortunately most comparisons don't end up looking too good for SLS, other than sheer payload to LEO in a single shot. If we are interested in putting boots on the moon for anything other than a brief stay we need to be looking at multiple launches and in space/on lunar surface construction anyway.
Re: Going while the going's good
It had occured to me some time ago, that what NASA should have been building were both Earth and Moon orbiting space stations.
Then cheap flights (using re-usable boosters) up to the Earth station could take place. An Earth-Moon transiting "shuttle" could then do the 250m mile journey back and forth between them and at Moon Station, a lunar lander could be stationed that heads to the surface and comes back again.
One could then have a second Lunar lander as a rescue vehicle in case Lander #1 failed.
All of this would be a lot cheaper than building one very large SLS, the majority of which is "lost" after launch...and hence this is a very costly exercise that only benefits the builder of the craft (as they will get repeat orders).
Getting stuff into space is expensive if it is large (and hecne needs heavy lift rockets)...but once it is IN space, it is re-useable and cost-effective.
Re: Going while the going's good
"250m mile journey"
The moon is a tad closer than that...
Re: Going while the going's good
"sheer payload to LEO in a single shot"
A mere stepping stone to a lunar cargo "space truck" hauling whatever we want [people, stuff, etc.] to and from the moon on a regular schedule. Personally, I think this is the best model to use.
It's that first part of the journey that's the most expensive, getting to LEO. Example, Apollo missions, where the 1st 2 stages lift the 3rd stage and LEM + Command Module into LEO, then 3rd stage pushes the LEM and Command Module into a Lunar trajectory, The vast majority of fuel [and rocket] was spent just getting to LEO.
So it's "UNIX Principle" applied to rocketry: "do one thing, well" - use the LEO tool to get the "space truck" and its fuel+cargo into LEO, then re-use the truck a bunch of times hauling the cargo+people.
Re: Going while the going's good
Yeah, but he could have made that choice six months ago and not taken the job at all.
It's not like the situation was unknown in November.
And besides, his departure does not exonerate him from responsibility for what happened during his (short) tenure. If, Heaven forbid, there is an explosion on the launch pad, he'll still be questioned for the decisions he took.
Re: Going while the going's good
It's my understanding that the re-usability of 1st stage rockets doesn't DIRECTLY apply to manned missions except that the manned mission booster can be re-used afterwards for an un-manned launch. But yeah THAT level of re-usability makes it cost less overall since the entire booster cost isn't eaten up by that one launch.
It seems to me that the more likely cost reducing factor is the NUMBER of launches, and a level of mass production of the same launch vehicle for all of them. It's sort of like the UNIX principle, i.e. "do one thing, well". So they build that ONE booster, hyperfocus on reliability, give it some nice bells/whistles wit the ability to land on its tail to be re-used, on a moving ship out at sea, and voila!
But the 10 year time frame is actually quite a bit longer than the Mercury project, which (I think this is right) took less than 4 years from planning to an actual manned launch. But we were in a hurry, and Alan Shepherd was a test pilot.
Re: Going while the going's good
The Redstone rocket already existed, it was for ballistic missiles. The Saturn V on the other hand had to be created from scratch.
Of course, almost every POTUS since Ronnie has instructed NASA to go back to the moon/on to mars/build a shuttle replacement. And then failed to provide the same crazy percentage of GDP to do it with.
It's possible that even the moon landings might have been cancelled, if that wouldn't have looked like p*ssing on the sainted JFK's grave.
Re: Going while the going's good
"It's possible that even the moon landings might have been cancelled, if that wouldn't have looked like p*ssing on the sainted JFK's grave"
Or worse: loosing to the commies. I'm thinking one of those was far more important to someone like Nixon (or even Johnson...).
Re: Going while the going's good
What is this crazy percentage of GDP of which you speak?
NASA consumed 2.2% of the Federal budget 1959-1972, of which the Mercury,Gemini and Apollo projects took 50%, so about 1.1% of the Federal budget, or $28 billion. When you consider that the F-22 Raptor project cost half as much as the full Apollo project, that makes the cost of running NASA look pretty reasonable and better value than you assumed.
The total cost of building the US interstate highway system was $105.28 billion, or 376% as much as the full Apollo project. Was that an even crazier crazy percentage of GDP? - but of course you must think thats an even bigger waste of money because the US managed to win WW2 without it. So, I can safely assume that you've never, ever driven on an interstate highway. Because doing that would make you a hypocrite and maybe even an ignorant one.
Source for the quoted costs: Apollo Program Cost: An Investment in Space Worth Retrying?
https://christopherrcooper.com/blog/apollo-program-cost-return-investment/
On the negative throught
Maybe, but then you'd think he'd expose it if people were in-danger, he fears something is going to go wrong. Because of an issue that has been known about for ages but higher ups are ignoring. Maybe. Probably totally wrong but isn't that how the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded. Over O-Rings that were known to be poor but they were forced to go ahead anyway.
Re: On the negative throught
Saying "I judged it necessary to fulfil our mission" in the leaked letter, covers a multitude of possibilities.
It could be a QA / testing short-cut to allow a subby to meet a deadline.
It could be agreeing to pay off a sexual harassment suit in order to keep someone key to the team in place.
My money's on something non-technical. Whatever it was, it sounds like it's about to become public.
Re: On the negative throught
I doubt it, his reasoning for leaving is causing too many questions. If it was being caught with his pants down then the usual reason for leaving is to spend time with the family.
My guess is whistle blowing.
Expect him to pop up with one of the private agencies in the next couple of weeks.
Hope this isn't another Morton-Thiokol moment
Nobody wants to see a Space-X firework.
I wonder
When I read 'choices earlier this year' my first thought was authorising [1]that Boeing flight. Turns out that was December though.
[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/12/20/boeing_starliner_failure/
Re: I wonder
with everything else that is going on, I speculate that it could have been the choice to NOT shut down the program during the corona-scare. Personally I see that as the CORRECT choice (i.e. NOT to shut down).
Another possibility might be to move forward with SpaceX before Boeing is ready with their competing system, so "all eggs in one basket" with SpaceX for the moment. But Baikonur is still an option... (and who knows, in the future, maybe India's space program). So better move forward, or be left behind.
(icon for the amateur sleuthing)
The NASA Offce of Inspector General was involved
Which leads to speculation that Mr. Loverro was offered the choice of resigning or being told by people with guns and badges to clear out his desk in 15 minutes, turning in his ID badge, and then being escorted to the front door of NASA HQ. Something to do with the Federal Acquisition Regulations, perhaps.
Re: The NASA Offce of Inspector General was involved
OR... Trumpo said those immortal words "You're Fired (and not into space)"
Did or didn't
Elsewhere speculation is split between him having rejected proposals from Boeing for both Lunar Gateway resupply and the Lunar Lander and them leaning on people, or for having included the Blue Origin bid for the Lander and the Orange One getting upset because Bezos is so supportive of the White House occupant.
ABORT!!!!
Cancel. The. Launch.
Something like this screams "THIS SPACECRAFT IS GOING TO BLOW UP AND KILL PEOPLE!!!!"
With Elon's recent decent into madness, I'd be afraid he'd even sabotage it personally.
Going while the going's good
Loverro is head of NASA's manned spaceflight division. A part of the organisation that has been developing their latest Space Launch System since 2011. A project that will build and fly 3 manned missions for sure and more planned but not confirmed, after that. The rockets are cobbled together from old Shuttle left-overs and will still cost around $2 billion per shot.
Compare that with Space-X. The company has gone from zero to manned operations in 10 years and expects its crewed Dragon flights to come in at $160 million a pop - due to the inherent reusability of their system. With a design capacity of 7 crew per launch (though I doubt it will ever cram that many in - at such a low cost, why bother?)
If I was head of NASA's manned operations, I'd want out before other people in the organisation start making these sorts of comaprisons, too.
Afterthought Perhaps a higher-up has already had that conversation with Loverro. Something along the lines of "Hey Doug, you do realise that if this Space-X flight succeeds, we're going to can your manned missions and just buy seats with them instead?"