Author Topic: LIVE: NASA FY14 Budget Proposal - April 10, 2013  (Read 34060 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
Re: LIVE: NASA FY14 Budget Proposal - April 10, 2013
« Reply #100 on: 04/15/2013 05:04 pm »
It's just occurred to me that this asteroid retrieval mission seems like a great candidate for a payment-on-delivery contracting model.

Now that is a good idea.  Now let me read the rest of your post...

Let me rephrase my statement, using the sarcasm quotes correctly:

[/sarcasm]Now that is a good idea. Now let me read the rest of your post...[sarcasm]

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
Re: LIVE: NASA FY14 Budget Proposal - April 10, 2013
« Reply #101 on: 04/15/2013 05:13 pm »
...some of the funding would probably need to be COTS/CCdev style milestone payments with perhaps half the funding payable upon delivery. Putting the money for the prize in a trust fund that's built up over the years before delivery may build confidence that Congress would actually deliver the prize ...

No doubt that some kind of a milestone payment system could be employed.  As to the trust fund, this is what I have in mind with my proposed change to NASA funding:  Use it or save it.  Surpluses in such a fund could cover reasonable cost overruns, or eventually fund "wouldn't it be nice" missions, with suitable oversight.  It would level out the funding instabilities, and would begin to reward government enterprises for being fiscally responsible.

Quote from: DeltaV
The asteroid bag itself is pretty new...

Good to see even a begrudging admission of the readiness level of the "brand new" technology proposal.

Quote from: DeltaV
... but I don't see any reason to doubt it being doable.

That's the kool-aid speaking, however.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 621
  • Likes Given: 2131
Re: LIVE: NASA FY14 Budget Proposal - April 10, 2013
« Reply #102 on: 04/15/2013 05:42 pm »
1.  First, I didn't say it would never work; I said that the bag was at TRL1.  Do you have any links that would establish a higher TRL level for the asteroid bag concept?
[...]
Third, please tell me the source of your apparent acceptance of the claim that the asteroid bag scheme is accurately characterized by Ms. Garver as "existing capability"?

There are two misunderstandings here, one by you and one by me. My misunderstanding is I assumed you brought up asteroid bag TRL because you think it's relevant to our policy discussions (not just as an attack on Graver) and hence were implicitly arguing that it was a problem. I see now that you didn't actually write that. What you literally wrote is however wrong due to your misunderstanding what Ms. Garver wrote. Ms. Garver's post says "We will use existing capabilities including [Orion and SLS]." Her statement that SLS and Orion will be used is true; she never stated (or IMHO even implied) that everything to do the mission exists already. There's no "only" before "use" in that sentence. (I don't want to waste time arguing about whether SLS and Orion count as "existing". For money-saving purposes those do programs already exist even if they haven't already flown.)

Quote
Second, the NASA video, which is the only "source" out there today, shows the bag approaching a non-tumbling asteroid.

I think the Kreck study is a much better source for details like this than that video is.

Quote
You cannot have an implication that this effort is a done deal.

I agree it isn't a done deal.

Quote
The $2.6B number is dependent on billions of dollars of additional funding for what are euphemistically called "existing capabilities".

I agree that funding is a serious risk, especially if NASA tries developing new thrusters and solar panels instead of using a cluster of existing ones.

---

This discussion of what people said is not productive so I don't anticipate continuing this discussion further.

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
Re: LIVE: NASA FY14 Budget Proposal - April 10, 2013
« Reply #103 on: 04/15/2013 06:32 pm »
My misunderstanding is I assumed you brought up asteroid bag TRL because you think it's relevant to our policy discussions ...

Well yeah.  If NASA officials are rallying behind the idea of developing this asteroid bag concept, they are free to rally around that idea.  Most of them must do as the Administrator orders them.  For the Administration to assert that the budget reported by the vested interests who stand to gain financially from funding this idea, is anything but biased, is fundamentally wrong.  It may be technically legal, but it is still wrong.

Quote from: JF
Second, the NASA video, which is the only "source" out there today, shows the bag approaching a non-tumbling asteroid.

Quote from: Langwich
I think the Kreck study is a much better source for details like this than that video is.

The paper, upon a close reading, makes clear the number of unsubstantiated costs associated with the mission.  Eventually, I would imagine that NASA and the expected PI's for the mission will coordinate their video outreach to the public.

Quote from: JF
The $2.6B number is dependent on billions of dollars of additional funding for what are euphemistically called "existing capabilities".

Quote from: Langwich
I agree that funding is a serious risk, especially if NASA tries developing new thrusters and solar panels instead of using a cluster of existing ones.

It's a lot more than just thrusters and solar panels.  To go all sixties for a sec:

It's not my bag, man.
« Last Edit: 04/15/2013 06:33 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: LIVE: NASA FY14 Budget Proposal - April 10, 2013
« Reply #104 on: 04/15/2013 07:08 pm »
John, I don't really like this mission idea either. But the NASA video clearly shows the capture craft approaching the spinning asteroid. It then maneuvers to a polar axis alignment and matches spins with the asteroid. (Just like the PanAm Express at the beginning of 2001: A Space Oddyssey, matching spins with the wheel station before docking.) The capture takes place with zero relative motion between the two objects. After capture, attitude jets fire to slow and then stop the objects' spin.

Mark S.

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
Re: LIVE: NASA FY14 Budget Proposal - April 10, 2013
« Reply #105 on: 04/15/2013 07:47 pm »
We need to do a bit of a thread fragment merge.  Parts of this conversation are in two different places.

Mark:  I agree that the video does show some rotation, a la the Strauss Waltz in "2001".  That perception is a matter of personal judgement as to its rate.  In addition, the video only shows one spin axis.

In the uncosted observation phase of this mission, they would be looking for what I'm calling a "lazy" asteroid, one with very little spin rate and even less tumbling.  With good orbital characteristics, the right albedo, etc. 

This is not the only objection I make to this mission.  My major objection is the "optimistic" assessment of costs in spite of NASA's own assessment of the ill effects of such an unrealistic approach:

Quote from: OIG
NASA leaders must temper the Agency’s culture of optimism by demanding realistic cost and schedule estimates, well-defined and stable requirements, and mature technologies early in development.

None of this temperment is shown in the Keck Kids paper.  Particularly the part about "mature" technologies.

Just because the President likes it, doesn't make it realistic.   

"Live and don't learn" seems to be the operative motto.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: LIVE: NASA FY14 Budget Proposal - April 10, 2013
« Reply #106 on: 04/15/2013 11:39 pm »
TRL 1 means that the underlying physical phenomena have been observed; all of the technology needed for the asteroid heist is well beyond stage.

Online jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: LIVE: NASA FY14 Budget Proposal - April 10, 2013
« Reply #107 on: 04/15/2013 11:44 pm »
TRL 1 means that the underlying physical phenomena have been observed; all of the technology needed for the asteroid heist is well beyond stage.

Heh, I like the term "asteroid heist". That said, the TRL of the bag capture concept is probably not much higher than a TRL2-3 range. Not saying it can't be matured quickly (possibly using test flights on a Vomit Comet or on ISS with something like SPHERES in rocky shell serving as the asteroid target) to a suitable TRL6+, but just that it isn't exactly proven technology.

~Jon

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: LIVE: NASA FY14 Budget Proposal - April 10, 2013
« Reply #108 on: 04/15/2013 11:59 pm »
The Keck study makes a similar recommendation on page 47:

Quote
Capture Mechanism Development

The capture mechanism must be able to accommodate a massive, irregularly shaped object with significant uncertainty in the physical dimensions and mass prior to launch. An over-sized inflatable structure lined with high-strength bags is the current concept for this mechanism. Development of a prototype capture mechanism based on this approach would significantly reduce risk for a future asteroid capture and return mission.

http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/asteroid_final_report.pdf
« Last Edit: 04/16/2013 12:01 am by yg1968 »

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
Re: LIVE: NASA FY14 Budget Proposal - April 10, 2013
« Reply #109 on: 04/16/2013 12:34 am »
I guessed 1.  Jon guessed 2 or 3.   If you add up all these numbers you get 6.

I have never said that bag-ism could not achieve the desired level. 

I have stated factually that its TRL has been falsely advertised.
« Last Edit: 04/17/2013 01:41 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: LIVE: NASA FY14 Budget Proposal - April 10, 2013
« Reply #110 on: 04/17/2013 12:15 am »
Mike Gazarik, NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate AA, held a media telecon today. Here is the zipped mp3 file of that teleconference:

http://www.gamefront.com/files/23242601/Space+Technology+FY+14+Budget.zip

It discusses the technology for the asteroid mission among other things.
« Last Edit: 04/27/2013 01:53 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0