Author Topic: The art of persuading the congressmen/OMB to support alternative SF policies  (Read 19470 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
NASA officials cannot question Congress. We, the space enthusiast community, can.

Excellent point.

Of course NASA officials cannot vigorously question congress.  They'll lose their jobs and pensions.

That's why they always express themselves publicly using terms of, well, "sweetness and light".  With a smattering of obscure jargon.

The "documents" Congress has been demanding are often statements demonstrating that NASA is following the micro largely proper, per JF's opinion management of Congress...

Fixed that for ya.

Quote from: Vulture
such as spending more on SLS and less on Commercial Crew.

Call it mis-macromanagement, if you want, but this is exactly the job of congress.

Quote
Congressman Wolf has frequently attached riders to large appropriations bills ordering NASA not to communicate with anyone from China, or even allow them on a NASA center.

C'mon.  Ya don't willingly let thieves into your apartment.  But I digress.

If there has been a time when government was so polarized and politicized, with such overt hostility by the members of one party toward a president of the other party, I cannot recall it.

Well, I remember the Civil War.  Barely, but still.  We are in "interesting" times, tho.

Oh.

I finally figured out why this guy, pictured below, landed on the ipe deck the other day, walking around eyeballing me.   "I'm not dead yet", I told him.  Sheesh.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Oh, wait!

Pick me, pick me! ...

So, talking to Congress can be very productive, if you do it correctly.

Well, I gotta say, good job! 

I'm thinking that you generally agree with me that yours is the exception in these things, and not the rule.  I only say that regarding the much larger state of the country today, and quite notice that further discussion on that would be OT.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
The idea that the President can somehow decree the future direction of NASA and Congress is expected to merely follow along is pure fantasy with no historic precedent. I dunno where you got the idea from.

Kennedy's address to the joint session of Congress? http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/xzw1gaeeTES6khED14P1Iw.aspx

Congress went along with Kennedy partly because of the usual pork-barrel deals and partly because they were a lot more willing to go along, except on ideological issues like civil rights. Today Obama, trying to push competition and free enterprise and eliminate an expensive government monopoly, is bitterly opposed by Republicans who fight anything he proposes even when it supports their own core ideology

I cannot help but wonder who is the "strong leader" that is often mentioned that would get NASA the major budget increase it would need to send the SLS and Orion to Mars? John McCain, who in 2004 told Sean O'Keefe in no uncertain terms that America could not afford Constellation? Newt Gingrich, who mentioned lunar bases during the primary in Florida and was laughed at? Jeb Bush, who dissolved the Florida Space Research Institute? Rand Paul, who wants to reduce the size and budget of the federal government? Hillary Clinton, who would likely continue Obama's emphasis on commercial spaceflight? Seriously, I'm not being defensive or derisive, I am just curious.
.
« Last Edit: 07/13/2014 03:00 pm by vulture4 »

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
The art of persuading starts with a plan and a comparison with alternatives.  Also point out "what's in it for me and them", and adjust accordingly.  For example:  The current plan started back in 2005, with complete control of the process: maintain shuttle derived and EELV.

The VSE and 2005 ESAS study returned to shuttle derived HLV, even though the economics clearly showed cheaper, but not completely vetted alternatives forward, with the goal of somehow reducing the costs of launch.   For the smaller fleet, the 2006 DOD/AF Future Needs propulsion study.  It was shown after the fact that ESAS did not conduct a proper trade study of all the alternatives, for obvious reasons, but was confused with the recent EELV cost data for Class A payload at 568M/launch, while Class D payload (propellant) was only 100M.  It should be quite obvious why this is the case:  spending a Billion on 10 launches offers no savings if the non-sole sourced option consumes the rest of the budget for payload-a shift in the work is required.

Griffin stated the obvious with this plan:  “During the time frame addressed by this report—the next several decades—the cost of access to Earth orbit can hardly be less than several thousand dollars per kilogram" and created a HUGE opportunity since it left the door open on an option rooted in history:  Titan I  and depots and the 'commercial' alternatives began.   The funding profile for CxP in the future was quite clear:
Also in the attached     FY2007       FY2008   FY2009     FY2010      FY2011
Total Space Shuttle     3,215.3      3,266.7    2.981.7    2.983.7          95.7
and the costs had to be reduced and understood.    Access to the data clearly showed a few states the merits of this HUGE opportunity.  Perhaps Knowledge is Power.

The HLV evolution resulted, but way too many technical and cost hurdles could not be overcome, not to mention the political hurdles-to NO surprise to numerous engineers with experience in rockets.  The shift away from LEO support (Ares I configuration to LV24/25) was the last straw for HLV given the certification of Falcon, provided that it remains 5-10 times less costly to LEO for crew and cargo.  The plan shifts to the next generation Altas/Delta/SLS replacement per the 2006 DOD/AF Propulsion study in the early 2020s--the early engineering (and politics) suggest that its a one and three core lower stage with a common engine and an upper stage with LH2 with the goal of reusability.  If not, then think of politics or other considerations.  Proper economic and engineering analysis is a big part of persuasion.

Five years after ESAS, the new 'commercial' LVs somehow survived with many of the figures of merit in place.  The reality of the cost of the existing fleet however in comparison is quite unsettling to the status quo--enter the art of persuasion filled with half truths and apples to oranges comparisons.   The requirements shift all the time:  the gap is now longer being closed and its only a BEO vehicle--quite an art in persuasion.   Unfortunately, these acts of persuasion occur in all sectors, either through ignorance or other motives.   

By carefully thinking through the options and performing parametric analysis, it easy to see how different scenarios play out, but one must have the data-a powerful element.   The lesson is that with any new concept outlined in just a few paragraphs, it likely does require a rocket scientist to flush out the validity of the approach, risks, and payoffs--IOW:  if these things are absent, then one should suspect other motives (although not necessarily with bad intent).

So Danderman and JohnFornaro omitted many details but basically stated the obvious:  a good concept can change space policy, but it takes lots of work, while Vulture points out the reality of the just say no "tactic":  time lag and many visits do not shorten the time to the obvious solution or path forward.  "art" does not equal "rapid".

Congressional control of agency policy at the level claimed by Mr. Wolf would make the Executive Branch superfluous.
We saw how "superfluous" it was with Griffin. He had all the Congressional support he wanted but the White House couldn't care less what he was up to. The result was a rabble of petty bureaucrats who second guessed his every decision. Without strong leadership, it didn't matter what Congress wrote into law or on the checks.

Ya need both branches to be in some semblance of agreement (and they need to obey the law, the third leg of this stool). It's almost like it was designed that way!
Griffin's ESAS contradicts the Griffin Pre-ESAS white paper, but the decision, for good or bad, was made to re-examine the costs and see if a 70mT LV could economically support ISS and LEO.  This decision was beyond Griffin, but clearly CxP gave a dedicated effort to try and support all legs of the stool, but would only work through LV13.1 given the lack of mT per year.  CxP gave the 2005 Congress its short term solution for politic reasons, but not long term solution, so it had to specify 70 and 130 mT and designate funds SLS/Orion.   The art of persuasion must have been the economy during the 2010 Act.   

The "second guessing" is a political tactic, part of the persuasion process--easier if one knows something will fail, at least in the short term.

SLS and Orion alone will not make a BEO exploration plan. The current budget does not include additional payloads for SLS, something that should have gone into design a year or two ago. As it stands now, there is nothing to launch in the 2020s other than an Orion. Without more money, this isn't going to work.

That has to have been the plan, all along.  There is no way for the USG to argue that the plan has been the accomplishment of a human space program.  There has been no concerted effort at intelligent design of such an HSF program.

Either that, or all the responsible cretans politicians are liars.

Yes, it took about 5 years to demonstrate that more credible HSF programs were possible outside of the HLV architecture.  A time lag of 5 years may or not be a success, but given all the obstacles in the road, perhaps more of a success.  The lack of technology at higher TRL is still THE driver of a robust HSF program, some of them have short time frame development cycles, while others appear to need a decade or two.  The result is that this limits the mT/year- a key figure of merit.  So its the budget and the need for technology development holding back SLS, but in combination with the future potential:  it has limited ways to reduce costs (no chance for reusability) and one needs a 500mT or more annual launch capacity to even think about making the business case close and why send a 6mT + 6mT LAS to ISS on a 70mT LV.   SLS will sit idle at perhaps one to two launches per year-- an absolutely TERRIBLE plan to demonstrate reliability.  As predicted, the HLV plan self imploded, but given the significant accomplishments (which overcame the major mistakes of including solids, limited re-use, and a tremendously oversized vehicle, ...) it was given a final chance to redeem its merits.  Even if its built, NASA cannot afford to operate it.  It used to be three strikes and out.....

Nearly a decade later, little evidence, despite Billions of resources,  has been provided to support the case for SLS/Orion--that is clearly a persuasive argument but backed up with lots of data analysis.

Garver's and many others consolidated all this into one statement:  there is no money for payload and technology development for the given budget..SLS should not be built--the political solution.

In summary, SLS and Orion are the gifts that keep on giving when the alternatives need not apply.  They clearly have shown how stall tactics delay all the arts of persuasion in the short term but require swaps of pork, produce, oil, other commodities in the one year cycle, and why Congressional Maps look like abstract art.  If anything, the art of persuasion has given a whole new meaning to 'commercial'.   It is no wonder that S&E is an unlikely career path?!

The lack of payloads clearly show that a sound alternative plan is working as an art of persuasion, but with time lag.   Only when crew health issues are resolved (lower mass and cost within acceptable risk) with lower IMLEO costs will HSF substantially increase flight rate--the art of persuasion would "show" how SLS meets this challenge versus the alternatives.

The "strong leader" or their team begins with the understanding of the power of the knowledge above.  Jumping ship has to be well timed:  it appears to be 2016 when the first oar is removed from the water or sinks assuming Falcon is certified in one if not more of its configurations.  Time lag will tell for sure, otherwise its 2020s and stall tactics rule, with Mars always 20 years away--a program worthy of a great nation.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
The lack of technology at higher TRL is still THE driver of a robust HSF program...

Rocketry is basically at the Spinal Tap TRL level of 11.

Reduction of manufacturing costs is the next "innovation" for that field of endeavor. 

I quite agree that the other stuff needs to be advanced.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2014 12:49 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
[Reduction of manucturing costs is the next "innovation" for that field of endeavor. 
I would say reduction of total launch cost. There are some gains to be made in manufacturing, as SpaceX has demonstrated, but even SpaceX cannot reduce manufacturing cost more than about 30-50%, and more is needed. At present reusability appears to be essential. As the Shuttle demonstrated, reusability has to be implemented correctly to actually reduce launch cost, but it clearly has the potential to do so.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Reduction of manufacturing costs is the next "innovation" for that field of endeavor. 
I would say reduction of total launch cost. There are some gains to be made in manufacturing, as SpaceX has demonstrated, but even SpaceX cannot reduce manufacturing cost more than about 30-50%, and more is needed. At present reusability appears to be essential. As the Shuttle demonstrated, reusability has to be implemented correctly to actually reduce launch cost, but it clearly has the potential to do so.

First, I just said "next", implying a prioritization only, not a final state.

Second, if SpaceX reduces its payscale to minimum wage, then manufacturing costs would fall.  So at least technically, more than 30-50% could be achieved.

But seriously, there is also robotics to be considered, and reusability must be demonstrated too, as you say.  There are also op costs.  I have no idea what the ultimate state of cost reduction will be.
« Last Edit: 07/15/2014 11:57 am by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
SpaceX is also aggressive on operational cost.

One of the cost drivers for most NASA projects is organizational interfaces, between different contractors and between NASA and industry. SpaceX minimizes them by keeping as much as possible in house. A second op cost driver is launching under NASA/DOD jurisdiction. After 30 years of "modernizing the range" and making KSC "open for business", I don't see much progress. KSC has proposed two new commercial pads, designated LC-39 C and D. (not the C and D on the old site maps). SpaceX is voting with its feet, moving commercial ops to Texas where it can launch under FAA rules.

Of course, if KSC would turn over ground access and operations to Space Florida and DOD would let FAA take over jurisdiction for launch clearance and range safety, the situation might change. I'm not holding my breath.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2014 10:16 pm by vulture4 »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
This occurs to me, though I can't claim to have used it:

A generic answer good for all situations.. Know your terrain, identify and argue to their self interest, don't bother trying to convince politicians who clearly already know their self interest.

Asking informed politicians (who support your goal) for advice on what you can do could also help. Good answers are probably not generic ones ;)


Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
This occurs to me, though I can't claim to have used it:

A generic answer good for all situations.. Know your terrain, identify and argue to their self interest, don't bother trying to convince politicians who clearly already know their self interest.

Asking informed politicians (who support your goal) for advice on what you can do could also help. Good answers are probably not generic ones ;)
All true and all on topic.

The US committee system encourages the formation of entrenched vested interests in the committees that steer those issues.

I would suggest that does not encourage stable  government but chaotic government in the mathematical sense, where things continue for a long period and then reach some kind of tipping point (this being the US Congress probably when several members of the same committee die of old age about the same time.  :( ) when everything becomes chaotically fluid.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
A generic answer good for all situations.. Know your terrain, identify and argue to their self interest, don't bother trying to convince politicians who clearly already know their self interest.

Asking informed politicians (who support your goal) for advice on what you can do could also help. Good answers are probably not generic ones .
All true and all on topic.

All true, topical, and virtually useless.  Too many of the politicians are liars. 'Tis a sticky wicket.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1