Author Topic: Op Ed: Five years after Augustine: How does the panel feel about NASA’s SLS  (Read 83209 times)

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/06/five-years-after-augustine-how-does-the-panel-feel-about-nasas-space-launch-system/

Eric Berger of the Houston Chronicle interviewed several members of the Augustine Commission about what they thought about NASA's SLS program. He didn't get all of the members of the Commission, but the ones he did were all fairly negative about going with SLS without increasing NASA's budget.

Augustine:
“I’m always an optimist,” he said. “But it all boils down to what the Congress and OMB want to put in this in terms of funds. If we shortchange it we’ll be right back where we were. There will be a third commission for somebody to run. But I think I’ll go into retirement on space commissions.”

Chiao:
“That was a big disappointment to most of us, probably all of us, on the committee. They did exactly what we asked them not to do, which was don’t partially fund it, and say you want to do everything.”

Greason:
“It’s hard for me, I personally haven’t been able to find a scenario in which a government funded and operated launch system, for which the government is the only customer, is a rational approach given the current budgets.

“Is that because I’m against big rockets? Of course not. But maintaining rocket production lines is a very expensive proposition. Trying to open another production line for a rocket that has almost no customers is a difficult thing for me to explain. The one argument I have heard that, if it were true, I would buy, is that there are no other ways to explore. I would buy that, but I don’t think it’s true.”



It'd be interesting to hear the takes of the other committee members. I'd be surprised if you couldn't find at least one of them with a more optimistic view of things. But I think that the three of them quoted here have it more or less right.

~Jon

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Augustine:
“I’m always an optimist,” he said. “But it all boils down to what the Congress and OMB want to put in this in terms of funds. If we shortchange it we’ll be right back where we were. There will be a third commission for somebody to run. But I think I’ll go into retirement on space commissions.”

Chiao:
“That was a big disappointment to most of us, probably all of us, on the committee. They did exactly what we asked them not to do, which was don’t partially fund it, and say you want to do everything.”

Both ironic comments, in my opinion. The committee was tasked with reviewing human spaceflight plans and making recommendations within the (then) current budget. The report they produced made a big song and dance about not making recommendations, but providing "options". There was talk at the Texas meeting about being realistic about budget and ensuring that Congress doesn't task NASA with doing program A with budget B, and that was the mantra for the remainder of the committee. Later, Norm made the comment that he didn't only want to provide "blue plate" options - meaning those that required a $3B/year plus-up to the human spaceflight budget. They never did. All the options presented in the report required the plus-up.

I would have liked to see what they'd come up with if they'd followed their mandate.

By the way, if you want a few days of viewing, is still available on youtube.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
The one argument I have heard that, if it were true, I would buy, is that there are no other ways to explore. I would buy that, but I don’t think it’s true.”

Apparently Elon thinks it's true, or else why would he be messing around with Raptor and all the enormous rocket stuff when he already has a rocket in the pipeline that's twice as big as Delta IV Heavy.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Apparently Elon thinks it's true, or else why would he be messing around with Raptor and all the enormous rocket stuff when he already has a rocket in the pipeline that's twice as big as Delta IV Heavy.

MCT is for colonization, not exploration. It's right there in the name.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Apparently Elon thinks it's true, or else why would he be messing around with Raptor and all the enormous rocket stuff when he already has a rocket in the pipeline that's twice as big as Delta IV Heavy.

MCT is for colonization, not exploration. It's right there in the name.

There's also the possibility that Jeff's right and Elon's wrong. Personally I think even that for colonization you'd be better off with high-flight-rate medium-lift vehicles for launch, reusable in-space transportation, and flying in convoys, instead of the speculations I've seen here about MCT.

I like Elon, and he's gotten a lot of things right, but sometimes takes a while to come around to the right answer (see: vertical powered landing). He is an extremely quick learner though. I wouldn't want to be competing with him... :-)

~Jon

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Personally I think even that for colonization you'd be better off with high-flight-rate medium-lift vehicles for launch, reusable in-space transportation, and flying in convoys, instead of the speculations I've seen here about MCT.

Personally, I agree. I was just correcting the implication that somehow Elon has already given up on doing deep space exploration with FH and thrown in his lot with the monster rocket for exploration crowd. FH is smaller than the minimum super heavy suggested by Augustine, but it's still bigger than anything else that is likely to be available this decade.. not that I have much hope of NASA doing any doing deep space exploration this decade.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Online EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
Augustine:
“I’m always an optimist,” he said. “But it all boils down to what the Congress and OMB want to put in this in terms of funds. If we shortchange it we’ll be right back where we were. There will be a third commission for somebody to run. But I think I’ll go into retirement on space commissions.”

Chiao:
“That was a big disappointment to most of us, probably all of us, on the committee. They did exactly what we asked them not to do, which was don’t partially fund it, and say you want to do everything.”

Both ironic comments, in my opinion. The committee was tasked with reviewing human spaceflight plans and making recommendations within the (then) current budget. The report they produced made a big song and dance about not making recommendations, but providing "options". There was talk at the Texas meeting about being realistic about budget and ensuring that Congress doesn't task NASA with doing program A with budget B, and that was the mantra for the remainder of the committee. Later, Norm made the comment that he didn't only want to provide "blue plate" options - meaning those that required a $3B/year plus-up to the human spaceflight budget. They never did. All the options presented in the report required the plus-up.

I would have liked to see what they'd come up with if they'd followed their mandate.

By the way, if you want a few days of viewing, is still available on youtube.


This is a good point that I had forgotten. We needed the commission to evaluate what's possible with current budget levels and current LVs.  At the time I liked that they said so explicitly that any big ambitions (such as those inherent in VSE) would need a major plus-up to even have a chance at success. It seemed like a much needed reality check. But in retrospect, your point is well taken; they should have had strong recommendations for a flat budget profile.  Cool stuff (BEO human exploration) can get done with flat budgets, and they should have pointed out their opinion on what that may have been from their point of view.
« Last Edit: 06/18/2014 12:53 am by EE Scott »
Scott

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Augustine:
“I’m always an optimist,” he said. “But it all boils down to what the Congress and OMB want to put in this in terms of funds. If we shortchange it we’ll be right back where we were. There will be a third commission for somebody to run. But I think I’ll go into retirement on space commissions.”

Chiao:
“That was a big disappointment to most of us, probably all of us, on the committee. They did exactly what we asked them not to do, which was don’t partially fund it, and say you want to do everything.”

Both ironic comments, in my opinion. The committee was tasked with reviewing human spaceflight plans and making recommendations within the (then) current budget. The report they produced made a big song and dance about not making recommendations, but providing "options". There was talk at the Texas meeting about being realistic about budget and ensuring that Congress doesn't task NASA with doing program A with budget B, and that was the mantra for the remainder of the committee. Later, Norm made the comment that he didn't only want to provide "blue plate" options - meaning those that required a $3B/year plus-up to the human spaceflight budget. They never did. All the options presented in the report required the plus-up.

I would have liked to see what they'd come up with if they'd followed their mandate.

By the way, if you want a few days of viewing, is still available on youtube.


This is a good point that I had forgotten. We needed the commission to evaluate what's possible with current budget levels and current LVs.  At the time I liked that they said so explicitly that any big ambitions (such as those inherent in VSE) would need a major plus-up to even have a chance at success. It seemed like a much needed reality check. But in retrospect, your point is well taken; they should have had strong recommendations for a flat budget profile.  Cool stuff (BEO human exploration) can get done with flat budgets, and they should have pointed out their opinion on what that may have been from their point of view.

IMO, all exploration options would have required a plus-up budget. Frankly, there's no way around it: inflation alone will mean reduced capabilities year over year. It required an honest assessment of the situation, and IIRC I believed that same sentiment that many years ago.

And wow, 5 years since the commission; it seems like yesterday.
I felt the option Sally Ride (bless her soul) put forth to likely be the best of those presented (utilizing shuttle in the longer term) to narrow the 'gap'. Of course I still believe Direct (still have the T-Shirt & mug) had the most favourable outcome for a launch vehicle to enable affordable BEO exploration AND reduce the gap, but alas here we are today facing all these political & policy problems.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
IMO, all exploration options would have required a plus-up budget. Frankly, there's no way around it: inflation alone will mean reduced capabilities year over year. It required an honest assessment of the situation, and IIRC I believed that same sentiment that many years ago.

No... if you watched the proceedings you would have heard many many options that didn't require a plus-up. The problem was that they didn't want to make any hard decisions, or try anything new. ISS? Keep it. Shuttle? Option 1: Keep it. Option 2: Keep the jobs. Ares V? Option 1: Keep it. Option 2: Keep it but make it look more like shuttle. Technology development? Spend more on it! Destination? Option 1: Mars. Option 2: Moon and Mars. Option 3: Everywhere! Chocolate microscopes? Approved!

Hey guys, my car is an old clunker and the last few times I've tried to go on a long trip it's broken down and I've had to cancel. I'm spending a small fortune keeping it going, surely I could buy a nicer car for all this money I'm spending on it. You're pretty smart, can you give me a recommendation of which car I should buy, and maybe teach me about basic maintenance? Why certainly friend, what you want to do is spend twice as much as you're already spending and buy a nice shiny sports car! Uhh.. I think you misunderstood the assignment.

The administration came to Augustine with the question: we're spending a heck of a lot on human spaceflight and we don't seem to get getting anything out of it, what should we be doing? The answer the committee gave was: spend more! Is it really any surprise that they didn't?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Apparently Elon thinks it's true, or else why would he be messing around with Raptor and all the enormous rocket stuff when he already has a rocket in the pipeline that's twice as big as Delta IV Heavy.

MCT is for colonization, not exploration. It's right there in the name.


Uh huh.  Elon is smoking something with that name.

There will be no Mars colony in the lifetimes of any of us.  A colony means hundreds of people and thousands upon thousands of tons delivered to the surface of Mars.  MCT is way, way too small for that.  If it happens, it's just going to be dabbling, and dabbling is exploration, not colonization.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Uh huh.  Elon is smoking something with that name.

You've heard of Elon Musk, right?

Quote from: Lee Jay
There will be no Mars colony in the lifetimes of any of us.

He disagrees.

Quote from: Lee Jay
A colony means hundreds of people and thousands upon thousands of tons delivered to the surface of Mars.

Yep, and that's what he's talking about.

Quote from: Lee Jay
MCT is way, way too small for that.

I was unaware that you had a copy of the specs. Can you share?

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Apparently Elon thinks it's true, or else why would he be messing around with Raptor and all the enormous rocket stuff when he already has a rocket in the pipeline that's twice as big as Delta IV Heavy.

MCT is for colonization, not exploration. It's right there in the name.


Uh huh.  Elon is smoking something with that name.

There will be no Mars colony in the lifetimes of any of us.  A colony means hundreds of people and thousands upon thousands of tons delivered to the surface of Mars.  MCT is way, way too small for that.  If it happens, it's just going to be dabbling, and dabbling is exploration, not colonization.

I actually think a Mars Colony by that definition is possible within our lifetimes (I'm only 33, and so long as this startup doesn't kill me, I hope to live at least another 40-50yrs). Just not using something like MCT. :-)

~Jon

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Uh huh.  Elon is smoking something with that name.

You've heard of Elon Musk, right?


Met him, in fact.  He said Falcon 9 would launch by the middle of 2009 and that they'd recover them intact by about the fifth flight.

Quote
Quote from: Lee Jay
There will be no Mars colony in the lifetimes of any of us.

He disagrees.

Quote from: Lee Jay
A colony means hundreds of people and thousands upon thousands of tons delivered to the surface of Mars.

Yep, and that's what he's talking about.

Quote from: Lee Jay
MCT is way, way too small for that.

I was unaware that you had a copy of the specs. Can you share?

Is it 20,000 tons to LEO?  You'll need about one launch like that per colonist.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Met him, in fact.  He said Falcon 9 would launch by the middle of 2009 and that they'd recover them intact by about the fifth flight.

Exactly.

Quote
Is it 20,000 tons to LEO?  You'll need about one launch like that per colonist.

Not in magic Elon land. I don't know what you're missing here. You made a comment about what Elon apparently thinks. I'm just pointing out that your idea of what he said and what he actually said are different. It's this thing I do.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
The problems with SLS are the design(s), and management of the program.

They program forgot KISS, and didn't learn from the past mistakes.  SLS is designed and managed to fail.




2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
The problems with SLS are the design(s), and management of the program.

They program forgot KISS, and didn't learn from the past mistakes.  SLS is designed and managed to fail.


Don't forget that that also includes political wishes/interference; a key contributor to the direction they are being asked to take.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
The problems with SLS are the design(s), and management of the program.

They program forgot KISS, and didn't learn from the past mistakes.  SLS is designed and managed to fail.


Don't forget that that also includes political wishes/interference; a key contributor to the direction they are being asked to take.
Sadly my full answer would not survive moderation.  :( The polite version is.

If the US Government funded human spaceflight activities are extended beyond LEO there may be an actual need for this vehicle. Who's going to ask for the funds to develop the payload?

The thing is once you know that on pretty much any mission outside LEO propellant will be the biggest mass item (and most easy divisible item) and that the with synchronized launches of all 4 major US LV's you could put about 63mt into LEO within 7-10 days right now have to ask "What's it for?" apart from keeping a bunch of people in Utah gainfully employed.  :(

With modern technology you could get a pretty good exploration architecture out of that if you used all of the available resources (the SSME stomps the old J2 in both Isp and thrust for starters. It was the jewel in the STS development. A lot of people felt a lot of pain to get that working and NASA put in plenty to make it even better, if they had been implemented ).

TL:DR Disappointed but not really surprised. The blame between Congress and NASA is IMHO 50/50.
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
Too bad to hear that about Augustine feedback.  Still thanks to Jon for starting the thread.

RE: SLS and MCT.

USG ain't gonna do it anytime soon, either due to incompetence or greed.  MCT is something that Musk wants to do and is trying to do; he is relatively independent of the two factors impinging the USG.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
IMO, all exploration options would have required a plus-up budget. Frankly, there's no way around it: inflation alone will mean reduced capabilities year over year. It required an honest assessment of the situation, and IIRC I believed that same sentiment that many years ago.

No... if you watched the proceedings you would have heard many many options that didn't require a plus-up. The problem was that they didn't want to make any hard decisions, or try anything new. ISS? Keep it. Shuttle? Option 1: Keep it. Option 2: Keep the jobs. Ares V? Option 1: Keep it. Option 2: Keep it but make it look more like shuttle. Technology development? Spend more on it! Destination? Option 1: Mars. Option 2: Moon and Mars. Option 3: Everywhere! Chocolate microscopes? Approved!

Hey guys, my car is an old clunker and the last few times I've tried to go on a long trip it's broken down and I've had to cancel. I'm spending a small fortune keeping it going, surely I could buy a nicer car for all this money I'm spending on it. You're pretty smart, can you give me a recommendation of which car I should buy, and maybe teach me about basic maintenance? Why certainly friend, what you want to do is spend twice as much as you're already spending and buy a nice shiny sports car! Uhh.. I think you misunderstood the assignment.

The administration came to Augustine with the question: we're spending a heck of a lot on human spaceflight and we don't seem to get getting anything out of it, what should we be doing? The answer the committee gave was: spend more! Is it really any surprise that they didn't?

I disagree, here.  There were 2 options offered that followed the FY 2010 budget proposals.  Option 1 was keep the program of record, presume FY 2010 budget levels going forward.  The results from that should prove sobering.  Option 2 was, in many respects, what we ended up with.  Quoting the Augustine report

Quote
The ISS and Lunar Exploration, constrained to FY 2010 budget.
This option extends the ISS to 2020 and begins a program of lunar exploration using Ares V Lite in the dual launch mode. The option assumes Shuttle fly-out in FY 2011, and it includes a technology development program, a program to develop commercial crew services to low-Earth orbit, and funds for enhanced utilization of the ISS. As shown in Figure 6.3.1-1, the Shuttle retires in FY 2011, and international providers rotate crew to the ISS until U.S. commercial crew services become available in the mid-to-late 2010s. Those providers are used to rotate the ISS crew until the Space Station’s retirement in 2020. This option does not deliver heavy-lift capability with the Ares V Lite plus Orion until the late 2020s and does not have funds to develop the systems needed to land on or explore the Moon. (See Figure 6.2.2-2.)

Now, I will grant they could have considered even more radical notions, and some of those are worth considering, but politically speaking, they are going to require a substantial lift (such as center closures),  that was not really within their charter. 

So, yes, I would argue they did look at the other options, including keeping it within guidance. 

It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684

Let's see:

1- Not giving NASA new funding? Check.
2- Not closing down any NASA responsibilities? Check.
3- Not seriously investing in new technologies to lower future costs? Check.

Hopefully XCOR will be in a position to lend Jeff back out to whatever the next Committee is in 5yrs (the Greason Committee?)...

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

USG ain't gonna do it anytime soon, either due to incompetence or greed.  .

Mostly for lack of need or reason.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684

USG ain't gonna do it anytime soon, either due to incompetence or greed.  .

Mostly for lack of need or reason.

Congress gets everything it wants out of NASA by having it look like it's working on going to Mars, why bother actually doing it and take the risks of a failure?

~Jon

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606

Oh, and I was hoping you were going to go with his "Baby wants his rattle" quote.

How very, sensible of you.  :(
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 floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 131
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/06/five-years-after-augustine-how-does-the-panel-feel-about-nasas-space-launch-system/
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/06/five-years-after-augustine-how-does-the-panel-feel-about-nasas-space-launch-system/

Eric Berger of the Houston Chronicle interviewed several members of the Augustine Commission about what they thought about NASA's SLS program. He didn't get all of the members of the Commission, but the ones he did were all fairly negative about going with SLS without increasing NASA's budget.

Augustine:
“I’m always an optimist,” he said. “But it all boils down to what the Congress and OMB want to put in this in terms of funds. If we shortchange it we’ll be right back where we were. There will be a third commission for somebody to run. But I think I’ll go into retirement on space commissions.”

Chiao:
“That was a big disappointment to most of us, probably all of us, on the committee. They did exactly what we asked them not to do, which was don’t partially fund it, and say you want to do everything.”

Greason:
“It’s hard for me, I personally haven’t been able to find a scenario in which a government funded and operated launch system, for which the government is the only customer, is a rational approach given the current budgets.

“Is that because I’m against big rockets? Of course not. But maintaining rocket production lines is a very expensive proposition. Trying to open another production line for a rocket that has almost no customers is a difficult thing for me to explain. The one argument I have heard that, if it were true, I would buy, is that there are no other ways to explore. I would buy that, but I don’t think it’s true.”



It'd be interesting to hear the takes of the other committee members. I'd be surprised if you couldn't find at least one of them with a more optimistic view of things. But I think that the three of them quoted here have it more or less right.

~Jon
Chiao:
“That was a big disappointment to most of us, probably all of us, on the committee. They did exactly what we asked them not to do, which was don’t partially fund it, and say you want to do everything.”

Greason:
“It’s hard for me, I personally haven’t been able to find a scenario in which a government funded and operated launch system, for which the government is the only customer, is a rational approach given the current budgets.

“Is that because I’m against big rockets? Of course not. But maintaining rocket production lines is a very expensive proposition. Trying to open another production line for a rocket that has almost no ustomers is a difficult thing for me to explain. The one argument I have heard that, if it were true, I would buy, is that there are no other ways to explore. I would buy that, but I don’t think it’s true.”




~Jon



Why is  there a problem when Nasa is getting what they have always wanted :
A cheap reusable 10 ton launcher that launches many times and a super heavy that lauches rarely .Only problem with SLS is that it costs so much and flight rate is slow .
Seeing as every cent spent on SLS goes straight into the US exchecker creating millions of jobs  cost is only a figure nothing more.
As for flight rate that should increase once the design has time to mature as it is SLS is a high teck prototype .
Once SLS is ready Nasa will be able to open the solar system only a matter of time time .

If they can open the SLS to other customers it would create a much larger market and bring dollars into the US .





Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Seeing as every cent spent on SLS goes straight into the US exchecker creating millions of jobs  cost is only a figure nothing more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
Why is  there a problem when Nasa is getting what they have always wanted :
A cheap reusable 10 ton launcher that launches many times and a super heavy that lauches rarely .Only problem with SLS is that it costs so much and flight rate is slow .
Seeing as every cent spent on SLS goes straight into the US exchecker creating millions of jobs  cost is only a figure nothing more.
As for flight rate that should increase once the design has time to mature as it is SLS is a high teck prototype .
Once SLS is ready Nasa will be able to open the solar system only a matter of time time .

If they can open the SLS to other customers it would create a much larger market and bring dollars into the US .
The problem ist that the super heavy is eating all the budget that have been spent on interesting payloads for the "cheap" launcher.
And how do you mature a launcher with >1 launches per year?

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Seeing as every cent spent on SLS goes straight into the US exchecker creating millions of jobs  cost is only a figure nothing more.

If NASA's budget were variable, and the budget for the SLS was added to NASA's budget, then maybe you could claim some sort of good from building something that may not have a use.  But in this case the SLS is being funded INSTEAD of other things that NASA had wanted to work on - things like in-space refueling technology, Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP), etc.  Technology that is still required even with a government-own HLV, and without that technology development the SLS doesn't have much to do.

So the $Billions going to the SLS are actually lost opportunity for NASA, both in dollars and in time, since the same amount of budget would have created essentially the same amount of economic benefit, just not the current political districts (which was part of the reason behind the creation of the SLS).

Quote
As for flight rate that should increase once the design has time to mature as it is SLS is a high teck prototype .

Flight rates are dependent on need, so time is not really a factor.  Who, besides NASA, needs to launch something bigger than what the Delta IV Heavy can lift?  And what funded program that NASA has, besides the Orion, requires an HLV?

The answer today is "none".

Quote
Once SLS is ready Nasa will be able to open the solar system only a matter of time time .

What has been holding NASA back from opening up the solar system hasn't been the lack of transportation, but a lack of solutions and validated technologies to keep humans alive and supplied in space.  An HLV does nothing to address those issues, so we are no closer to opening up the solar system with the SLS than we were before the SLS.

Quote
If they can open the SLS to other customers it would create a much larger market and bring dollars into the US .

There are laws that limit the ability of the government to compete with the private market, and it makes no sense to have taxpayers subsidizing a market that hasn't asked for any help.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078

As for flight rate that should increase once the design has time to mature as it is SLS is a high teck prototype .


High tech it isn't; 1970's technology in the 21st Century!

SLS will not advance the US's spaceflight capability and be more of an anchor on NASA than the shuttle was.  It will be a rocketship to nowhere, where as the shuttle was at least good at servicing the ISS.


http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34487.msg1183563#msg1183563
« Last Edit: 06/18/2014 07:25 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 131

The RD 25 are engines that have been evolving since the 1970s the rest of the SLS is state of the art .
The ISS was built by the shuttle because that was what they had they could have built a far cheaper station with SLS .
Payloads are not a problem once the rocket is flying.
As for calling the SLS an anchor  I would call it putting NASA back to work not wasting time doing worthless science Like they have been doing for they last 34 years .




Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914

The RD 25 are engines that have been evolving since the 1970s the rest of the SLS is state of the art .
The ISS was built by the shuttle because that was what they had they could have built a far cheaper station with SLS .
Payloads are not a problem once the rocket is flying.
As for calling the SLS an anchor  I would call it putting NASA back to work not wasting time doing worthless science Like they have been doing for they last 34 years .

Obviously you have not read their charter; Science and Technology is what NASA is supposed to be about and was before JFK hijacked it.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 131

The RD 25 are engines that have been evolving since the 1970s the rest of the SLS is state of the art .
The ISS was built by the shuttle because that was what they had they could have built a far cheaper station with SLS .
Payloads are not a problem once the rocket is flying.
As for calling the SLS an anchor  I would call it putting NASA back to work not wasting time doing worthless science Like they have been doing for they last 34 years .

Obviously you have not read their charter; Science and Technology is what NASA is supposed to be about and was before JFK hijacked it.



True he gave them a job without him Nasa would be more like ESA in size and capeability .

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428


True he gave them a job without him Nasa would be more like ESA in size and capeability .

And what's wrong with that?

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 131


True he gave them a job without him Nasa would be more like ESA in size and capeability .

And what's wrong with that?



No manned spaceflight and mabey 2 payloads a year.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

No manned spaceflight and mabey 2 payloads a year.

NASA flies 6-8 per year and would have money to do more.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
So, yes, I would argue they did look at the other options, including keeping it within guidance. 



"Change nothing" wasn't an option going in. Saying that it was presented as an option in the report is the same as saying they didn't present an option within the budget. Yeah, they traded extended ISS for a slightly more sensible HLV.
« Last Edit: 06/18/2014 10:33 pm by QuantumG »
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
There were 2 options offered that followed the FY 2010 budget proposals.  Option 1 was keep the program of record, presume FY 2010 budget levels going forward.  The results from that should prove sobering.  Option 2 was, in many respects, what we ended up with.  Quoting the Augustine report

Quote
The ISS and Lunar Exploration, constrained to FY 2010 budget.
This option extends the ISS to 2020 and begins a program of lunar exploration using Ares V Lite in the dual launch mode. The option assumes Shuttle fly-out in FY 2011, and it includes a technology development program, a program to develop commercial crew services to low-Earth orbit, and funds for enhanced utilization of the ISS. As shown in Figure 6.3.1-1, the Shuttle retires in FY 2011, and international providers rotate crew to the ISS until U.S. commercial crew services become available in the mid-to-late 2010s. Those providers are used to rotate the ISS crew until the Space Station’s retirement in 2020. This option does not deliver heavy-lift capability with the Ares V Lite plus Orion until the late 2020s and does not have funds to develop the systems needed to land on or explore the Moon. (See Figure 6.2.2-2.)

Now, I will grant they could have considered even more radical notions, and some of those are worth considering, but politically speaking, they are going to require a substantial lift (such as center closures),  that was not really within their charter. 

So, yes, I would argue they did look at the other options, including keeping it within guidance. 



I love the way Greason ends by saying:

If you don't invest in technology, and you don't like today's picture, and you don't turn anything off, then when the next commission gets up ten years from now, the situation won't look any better.

He was absolutely spot on, except that "the next commission" came along in just five years.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
True he gave them a job without him Nasa would be more like ESA in size and capeability .

And what's wrong with that?
Now that is a provocative question.  :)

But I suspect that needs a whole thread on it's own. Lots of cause and effect chains to be unraveled.  :)

Returning to the thread title, SLS, too big? too small? too early? too expensive?
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 RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Returning to the thread title, SLS, too big? too small? too early? too expensive?

Since no one is funding payloads to fly on SLS other than two Orion capsules, I'd say too early.

If two or three flights of the Falcon Heavy can put as much in orbit as SLS for less money, than SLS is too expensive. We'll know that soon enough because FH will be operational before the SLS first flight.

Now I'm not saying Congress will dump SLS for FH. Even if they cancel SLS, which they probably won't, there are no payloads to move to FH.

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
Even if they cancel SLS, which they probably won't, there are no payloads to move to FH.

Maybe no current NASA payloads.  But you could do a Mars mission with a few FH launches
if you do not insist on doing it the way NASA is currently planning.

I am beginning to think then when humans get to Mars, it will not be NASA rockets that get us
there.

Offline OpsAnalyst

Even if they cancel SLS, which they probably won't, there are no payloads to move to FH.

Maybe no current NASA payloads.  But you could do a Mars mission with a few FH launches
if you do not insist on doing it the way NASA is currently planning.



How, exactly? (curious)

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
Even if they cancel SLS, which they probably won't, there are no payloads to move to FH.

Maybe no current NASA payloads.  But you could do a Mars mission with a few FH launches
if you do not insist on doing it the way NASA is currently planning.


How, exactly? (curious)

One way is by assembling a larger craft in LEO from 2 or 3 launches.   Another way is to send some of the equipment,
such as the return vehicle, more life support supplies, etc, on ahead as separate unmanned missions.  ("Mars surface
rendezvous")  Or some combination of these two approaches.  Robert Zubrin
worked out one possible scenario in his book "The Case for Mars".

There are other threads here that go into these techniques in greater detail.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Even if they cancel SLS, which they probably won't, there are no payloads to move to FH.

Maybe no current NASA payloads.  But you could do a Mars mission with a few FH launches
if you do not insist on doing it the way NASA is currently planning.


How, exactly? (curious)

One way is by assembling a larger craft in LEO from 2 or 3 launches.   ...
Assuming a fully developed Falcon Heavy, you are suggesting humans on Mars surface using only 100-150 tonnes launched to LEO.  Not possible, to my knowledge.  Even the minimalist missions to just place astronauts in Mars orbit, not send them to the surface, require 250 tonnes or more.  Missions to land that use undeveloped technologies like aeroshells and nuclear thermal engines require 600+ tonnes.  Missions to land on Mars that use chemical propulsion throughout might require as much as 1,500 tonnes in LEO. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/19/2014 07:00 pm by edkyle99 »

Online EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
Make it four FH launches and downscope the mission to flyby or Phobos landing. That is something that is much more reasonable than trying to figure out how to get to the surface with the current budget outlook. Modest budgets, modest goals.

[assuming FH is successfully deployed; as of now it's just in development, its success is not assured]
« Last Edit: 06/19/2014 07:12 pm by EE Scott »
Scott

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Make it four FH launches and downscope the mission to flyby or Phobos landing. That is something that is much more reasonable than trying to figure out how to get to the surface with the current budget outlook. Modest budgets, modest goals.

And bring along some ISRU experiments... If you can get local prop at Phobos/Deimos or Mars, it drastically slashes the amount of IMLEO needed for follow-on Mars missions.

Interesting thought. While some people might be turned off by going just to Phobos or Deimos when Mars is just there, there's a lot of historical precedence for explorers using one expedition to setup a base camp to make a follow-on mission to the actual destination possible...

~Jon
« Last Edit: 06/19/2014 08:00 pm by jongoff »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Even if they cancel SLS, which they probably won't, there are no payloads to move to FH.

Maybe no current NASA payloads.  But you could do a Mars mission with a few FH launches
if you do not insist on doing it the way NASA is currently planning.


How, exactly? (curious)


And now it's time to get out our Lego sets, everybody designing their own space mission. It's fun! It's easy! And everybody can play!

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Even if they cancel SLS, which they probably won't, there are no payloads to move to FH.

Maybe no current NASA payloads.  But you could do a Mars mission with a few FH launches
if you do not insist on doing it the way NASA is currently planning.


How, exactly? (curious)


And now it's time to get out our Lego sets, everybody designing their own space mission. It's fun! It's easy! And everybody can play!

Yeah, this thread probably isn't the place for the latest handwaving about Mars missions... We have plenty of other threads for that...

~Jon

Offline CommercialSpaceFan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 1
The problems with SLS are the design(s), and management of the program.

They program forgot KISS, and didn't learn from the past mistakes.  SLS is designed and managed to fail.

The thing is once you know that on pretty much any mission outside LEO propellant will be the biggest mass item (and most easy divisible item) and that the with synchronized launches of all 4 major US LV's you could put about 63mt into LEO within 7-10 days right now have to ask "What's it for?" apart from keeping a bunch of people in Utah gainfully employed.  :(

Even with SLS, every crewed mission will require “assembly” of multiple launches, other than simply sending Orion to high Earth orbit.  Per NASA analysis: a lunar mission requires 2 SLS launches; Mars missions will require 6 to 10 SLS launches.

Since the start of Ares nearly 10 years ago, NASA has spent over $15B on Ares/SLS development.  Maintaining the current NASA SLS investment of $1.8B per year, NASA will spend another $30B through 2030 to support NASA’s planned 9 SLS launches.  That amounts to $5B per launch or $50,000/kg at 100 tons per launch.   Even post 2030 at a steady 1 launch per year the recurring cost amounts to $18,000/kg.

As many have proposed over the past 10 years, why not develop the “assembly” capability now? (As John notes, most of the required launch mass is propellant, so “assembly” could be as simple as fueling the upper stage in LEO).  A combination of a Falcon Heavy, Atlas 552 and Delta Heavy can launch the same 100 tons for under $600m or <$6,000/kg. 

With NASA’s plans to facilitate to support SLS at 1 launch per year it will be challenging to support even lunar missions.  On the other hand SpaceX plans 20 Falcon launches per year and ULA is already supporting 15 launches per year.  Thus explorations use of multiple Falcon, Atlas and Delta launches per year won’t stress the current capabilities and will actually provide motivation for further private investment and competition, reducing costs over time. 

So it is no wonder that folks who supported the Augustine panel are frustrated.  Congress chose to not increase funding by $3B/year and still saddled NASA with the expense of SLS, hence no exploration.  This doesn’t have to be the case, with the savings of using existing launchers NASA could actually afford to invest in the mission elements now and embark on modest, but real exploration within its current budget.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
The problems with SLS are the design(s), and management of the program.

They program forgot KISS, and didn't learn from the past mistakes.  SLS is designed and managed to fail.

The thing is once you know that on pretty much any mission outside LEO propellant will be the biggest mass item (and most easy divisible item) and that the with synchronized launches of all 4 major US LV's you could put about 63mt into LEO within 7-10 days right now have to ask "What's it for?" apart from keeping a bunch of people in Utah gainfully employed.  :(

Even with SLS, every crewed mission will require “assembly” of multiple launches, other than simply sending Orion to high Earth orbit.  Per NASA analysis: a lunar mission requires 2 SLS launches; Mars missions will require 6 to 10 SLS launches.


finish the story.....and that is why Pad 39A should not have been given away.    Any serious program to Mars, Moon, or even some asteroid will require two pads.

Given that we don't have any serious program .    The only short term fix now will be Orion on Delta IV and SLS.

I'd hate to be the next NASA administrator and left with the "Choices" at the end of Boldens miss-adventures.

« Last Edit: 06/22/2014 05:57 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
As many have proposed over the past 10 years, why not develop the “assembly” capability now? (As John notes, most of the required launch mass is propellant, so “assembly” could be as simple as fueling the upper stage in LEO).  A combination of a Falcon Heavy, Atlas 552 and Delta Heavy can launch the same 100 tons for under $600m or <$6,000/kg. 


Can you provide cost estimates for assembly?

It's easy to compare these rocket costs: X rocket costs $Y, vs. Q rocket that costs $Z. What you never see is the cost of shifting the burden to assembly. How do you know that this really does save money if you don't know the costs for assembly? How do you know that this hasn't simply shifted the costs elsewhere?

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
I'd hate to be the next NASA administrator and left with the "Choices" at the end of Boldens miss-adventures.

Per the NASA HQ website (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/strahand/roles.htm), this is what Bolden is supposed to do:

-   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
3.2.1 NASA Administrator
The Administrator is the Agency's highest level decisionmaker, providing clarity to the Agency's vision and serving as the source of internal leadership to achieve NASA's mission. The Administrator aligns the strategic and policy direction of NASA with the interests and requirements of the Agency's stakeholders and constituent groups.

The Administrator and immediate senior staff provide overall strategic direction and policies for the organization and establish the Agency's relative priorities, associated budget guidelines, and performance assessment. Senior staff officials within the Office of the Administrator include the Deputy Administrator, Associate Deputy Administrator, Associate Deputy Administrator (Technical), Chief Engineer, Chief Information Officer, Chief Scientist, and the Chief Technologist.

-   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -

And according to the most recent GAO report (http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/662571.pdf) assessing selected large-scale projects, when Bolden took over selected major projects (excluding JWST) were experiencing an average of 11 months launch delay and an average cost growth of 12%.  Today that is down to 3 month launch delay and 3% cost growth.  Not to mention all the programmatic upheaval that Congress was approving, which was effectively a rebuke of the Griffin era.

So I would think the next NASA Administrator would be giving Bolden big bear hugs for leaving him an agency that is pretty much on track for where it should be based on what has been approved through Congress, and that the next Administrator won't have to spend a lot of time in front of Congress explaining how they are going to be "fixing" things.  If you look at the Administrator job description, that pretty much is what they have to do in the second paragraph, which means they have less time to focus any energies on the first paragraph - and the first paragraph is where an Administrator has any input into "vision" type stuff.

But it's hard to push "vision" when your agency is late and over budget - how can you justify getting more money if you can't manage what you have?

Because of that, I think Bolden has been limited in any ability he may potentially have had in influencing future exploration plans that may (or may not) have been the result of the Augustine Commissions recommendations.  But we'll never really know.

However the next Administrator will likely have far less crises to deal with on day 1 than Bolden did.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline MP99



Even if they cancel SLS, which they probably won't, there are no payloads to move to FH.

Maybe no current NASA payloads.  But you could do a Mars mission with a few FH launches
if you do not insist on doing it the way NASA is currently planning.


How, exactly? (curious)

One way is by assembling a larger craft in LEO from 2 or 3 launches.   Another way is to send some of the equipment,
such as the return vehicle, more life support supplies, etc, on ahead as separate unmanned missions.  ("Mars surface
rendezvous")  Or some combination of these two approaches.  Robert Zubrin
worked out one possible scenario in his book "The Case for Mars".

There are other threads here that go into these techniques in greater detail.

I wouldn't "out" someone on NSF, but MLD links to her website in her user profile.

http://www.marylynnedittmar.com/?cat=40
https://touch.www.linkedin.com/?sessionid=261498949599232&as=false&can=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.linkedin.com%252Fin%252Fmarylynnedittmar&rs=false#public-profile/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fmarylynnedittmar

... Or just google her name.

You can be sure she's well aware of what's practical in this sphere. You might like to add a little flesh to the bones of your scheme, or link to something that has been worked out at least to a high level.

Cheers, Martin

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
As many have proposed over the past 10 years, why not develop the “assembly” capability now? (As John notes, most of the required launch mass is propellant, so “assembly” could be as simple as fueling the upper stage in LEO).  A combination of a Falcon Heavy, Atlas 552 and Delta Heavy can launch the same 100 tons for under $600m or <$6,000/kg. 


Can you provide cost estimates for assembly?

It's easy to compare these rocket costs: X rocket costs $Y, vs. Q rocket that costs $Z. What you never see is the cost of shifting the burden to assembly. How do you know that this really does save money if you don't know the costs for assembly? How do you know that this hasn't simply shifted the costs elsewhere?

That's a valid question, but it's a messy one because in-space assembly replaces larger assembly on Earth, and there are compromises you have to make with large assemblies on Earth that you don't have to make (or at least to a lesser degree) with in-space assembly.

For instance, with a larger one-piece assembly the structure has to be strengthened to survive launch, but that weight is not needed in space and becomes parasitic for the life of the structure - more fuel is needed to move it or to keep it in orbit.  A positive trade-off would be having a larger pressurized structure, and if that is needed then that could be more mass efficient overall.  However an inflatable structure such as Bigelow has proposed could get around that.

From a touch labor standpoint let's say it take 100 hours of astronaut time to mate a new assembly to an existing structure and to make all the connections.  In the whole scheme of things, is that a lot?  If the structure has a limited lifetime of use, then maybe that is excessive, but if the structure will be in service for 20 years then maybe that's not much time at all, especially when compared to touch labor times here on Earth for new buildings.

In fact, with Earth being this major gravity well, I would think we'd want to send up the smallest building components possible and do more and more assembly in space to create far more mass-efficient structures in space (even more important with reusable vehicles).  That would have to assume that moving humans to space and back is affordable, as well as supplies, but the trend of that is looking more and more positive.

Just some thoughts...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
I'd hate to be the next NASA administrator and left with the "Choices" at the end of Boldens miss-adventures.

Per the NASA HQ website (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/strahand/roles.htm), this is what Bolden is supposed to do:

-   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
3.2.1 NASA Administrator
The Administrator is the Agency's highest level decisionmaker, providing clarity to the Agency's vision and serving as the source of internal leadership to achieve NASA's mission. The Administrator aligns the strategic and policy direction of NASA with the interests and requirements of the Agency's stakeholders and constituent groups.


you don't even need to read the reports to know NASA hasn't a HSF mission.  My point stands.
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
I'd hate to be the next NASA administrator and left with the "Choices" at the end of Boldens miss-adventures.

Per the NASA HQ website (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/strahand/roles.htm), this is what Bolden is supposed to do:

-   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
3.2.1 NASA Administrator
The Administrator is the Agency's highest level decisionmaker, providing clarity to the Agency's vision and serving as the source of internal leadership to achieve NASA's mission. The Administrator aligns the strategic and policy direction of NASA with the interests and requirements of the Agency's stakeholders and constituent groups.


you don't even need to read the reports to know NASA hasn't a HSF mission.  My point stands.

If HSF is Human Spaceflight, then what do you call what we're doing on the ISS?  According to Wikipedia the ISS represents Human Spaceflight.  And what about our efforts to create a commercial crew transportation system?  That would be new human space flight activity.  And Bolden has been a staunch supporter and defender of both.

If you mean BEO HSF, then sure we don't have any funded plans at this moment, but my point was that Bolden is not responsible for defining and getting political buy-in for BEO HSF missions.

So I'm not sure why you are blaming Bolden for something that he has no responsibility over.  Unless maybe you just don't like the guy, but that again is not his responsibility...   ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
And what about our efforts to create a commercial crew transportation system? 
After the events of this weekend, I'm rethinking what I thought I believed about commercial crew.  I'm feeling more certain about other things, such as that I'm even more certain that SLS, Orion, and RD-180 replacement are essential.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
After the events of this weekend, I'm rethinking what I thought I believed about commercial crew.

That's a good thing. You should think about all your "beliefs" an evaluate them on the evidence.

Quote from: edkyle99
I'm feeling more certain about other things, such as that I'm even more certain that SLS, Orion, and RD-180 replacement are essential.

.. and what evidence led you to those conclusions?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
And what about our efforts to create a commercial crew transportation system? 
After the events of this weekend, I'm rethinking what I thought I believed about commercial crew.  I'm feeling more certain about other things, such as that I'm even more certain that SLS, Orion, and RD-180 replacement are essential.

 - Ed Kyle

I'm not sure I'm parsing that right, Ed. Do you mean that we need replacements for Orion, SLS, and the RD-180 due to the bad weather at the Cape? Or that due to bad weather, we really need to complete Orion and SLS, and to find a replacement for the RD-180 in order to keep Atlas-V flying?

Thanks.

Offline CommercialSpaceFan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 1
As many have proposed over the past 10 years, why not develop the “assembly” capability now? (As John notes, most of the required launch mass is propellant, so “assembly” could be as simple as fueling the upper stage in LEO).  A combination of a Falcon Heavy, Atlas 552 and Delta Heavy can launch the same 100 tons for under $600m or <$6,000/kg. 


Can you provide cost estimates for assembly?

It's easy to compare these rocket costs: X rocket costs $Y, vs. Q rocket that costs $Z. What you never see is the cost of shifting the burden to assembly. How do you know that this really does save money if you don't know the costs for assembly? How do you know that this hasn't simply shifted the costs elsewhere?

That's a valid question, but it's a messy one because in-space assembly replaces larger assembly on Earth, and there are compromises you have to make with large assemblies on Earth that you don't have to make (or at least to a lesser degree) with in-space assembly.

For instance, with a larger one-piece assembly the structure has to be strengthened to survive launch, but that weight is not needed in space and becomes parasitic for the life of the structure - more fuel is needed to move it or to keep it in orbit.  A positive trade-off would be having a larger pressurized structure, and if that is needed then that could be more mass efficient overall.  However an inflatable structure such as Bigelow has proposed could get around that.

From a touch labor standpoint let's say it take 100 hours of astronaut time to mate a new assembly to an existing structure and to make all the connections.  In the whole scheme of things, is that a lot?  If the structure has a limited lifetime of use, then maybe that is excessive, but if the structure will be in service for 20 years then maybe that's not much time at all, especially when compared to touch labor times here on Earth for new buildings.

In fact, with Earth being this major gravity well, I would think we'd want to send up the smallest building components possible and do more and more assembly in space to create far more mass-efficient structures in space (even more important with reusable vehicles).  That would have to assume that moving humans to space and back is affordable, as well as supplies, but the trend of that is looking more and more positive.

Just some thoughts...

Assembly can be complex requiring dozens of flights and thousands of hours of astronaut support such as ISS.

Alternatively assembly can be as simple as docking.  When Dragon, Cygnus, ATV, HTV and progress dock to ISS very little support is required.  This is analogous to the Apollo missions when the capsule performed the 180 degree turn in LEO to dock with the LEM.  Similarly, crew could be launched separately from a lunar lander only requiring docking prior to Earth departure.  This form of “assembly” doesn’t require additional cost relative to the use of SLS since the equivalent docking will be required in lunar orbit to transfer crew from Orion to the lander.

Refueling the upper stage requires at a minimum “soft” docking with a pair of transfer line couplings.  With rendezvous already required for Orion, refueling can be had for the cost of automated couplings and a cryo tank.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Assembly can be complex requiring dozens of flights and thousands of hours of astronaut support such as ISS.

Alternatively assembly can be as simple as docking.  When Dragon, Cygnus, ATV, HTV and progress dock to ISS very little support is required.  This is analogous to the Apollo missions when the capsule performed the 180 degree turn in LEO to dock with the LEM.  Similarly, crew could be launched separately from a lunar lander only requiring docking prior to Earth departure.  This form of “assembly” doesn’t require additional cost relative to the use of SLS since the equivalent docking will be required in lunar orbit to transfer crew from Orion to the lander.

Refueling the upper stage requires at a minimum “soft” docking with a pair of transfer line couplings.  With rendezvous already required for Orion, refueling can be had for the cost of automated couplings and a cryo tank.


Cost estimates. Cost estimates.

Again: you base your argument by comparing costs of launch vehicles and decide that one is better than the other. But doing so shifts the burden to assembly. Do you have cost estimates for assembly? If not, how can you make the cost argument with any confidence?

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Assembly can be complex requiring dozens of flights and thousands of hours of astronaut support such as ISS.

Alternatively assembly can be as simple as docking.  When Dragon, Cygnus, ATV, HTV and progress dock to ISS very little support is required.  This is analogous to the Apollo missions when the capsule performed the 180 degree turn in LEO to dock with the LEM.  Similarly, crew could be launched separately from a lunar lander only requiring docking prior to Earth departure.  This form of “assembly” doesn’t require additional cost relative to the use of SLS since the equivalent docking will be required in lunar orbit to transfer crew from Orion to the lander.

Refueling the upper stage requires at a minimum “soft” docking with a pair of transfer line couplings.  With rendezvous already required for Orion, refueling can be had for the cost of automated couplings and a cryo tank.


Cost estimates. Cost estimates.

Again: you base your argument by comparing costs of launch vehicles and decide that one is better than the other. But doing so shifts the burden to assembly. Do you have cost estimates for assembly? If not, how can you make the cost argument with any confidence?

Looking at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Space_Station_spacewalks), there were 974 hours of EVA time required to assemble the ISS, and if we want to characterize that in relationship to mass, that would be one hour for each 462kg of mass if we assume the ISS weighs 450mt.

As far as "cost", that's likely impossible to tell because each EVA is rehearsed on Earth before being done in space and there are lots of support people during the EVA - it's certainly just not the hourly wage of the astronaut.

And what is this information supposed to be compared against?  What HLV-sized assembly cost info is there?  What HLV-sized assemblies are assumed?

This is like comparing different colored unicorns...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
I'm not sure I'm parsing that right, Ed. Do you mean that we need replacements for Orion, SLS, and the RD-180 due to the bad weather at the Cape? Or that due to bad weather, we really need to complete Orion and SLS, and to find a replacement for the RD-180 in order to keep Atlas-V flying?
Weather has nothing to do with it. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 06/23/2014 02:25 am by edkyle99 »

Offline MP99



Assembly can be complex requiring dozens of flights and thousands of hours of astronaut support such as ISS.

Alternatively assembly can be as simple as docking.  When Dragon, Cygnus, ATV, HTV and progress dock to ISS very little support is required.  This is analogous to the Apollo missions when the capsule performed the 180 degree turn in LEO to dock with the LEM.  Similarly, crew could be launched separately from a lunar lander only requiring docking prior to Earth departure.  This form of “assembly” doesn’t require additional cost relative to the use of SLS since the equivalent docking will be required in lunar orbit to transfer crew from Orion to the lander.

Refueling the upper stage requires at a minimum “soft” docking with a pair of transfer line couplings.  With rendezvous already required for Orion, refueling can be had for the cost of automated couplings and a cryo tank.


Cost estimates. Cost estimates.

Again: you base your argument by comparing costs of launch vehicles and decide that one is better than the other. But doing so shifts the burden to assembly. Do you have cost estimates for assembly? If not, how can you make the cost argument with any confidence?

Looking at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Space_Station_spacewalks), there were 974 hours of EVA time required to assemble the ISS, and if we want to characterize that in relationship to mass, that would be one hour for each 462kg of mass if we assume the ISS weighs 450mt.

As far as "cost", that's likely impossible to tell because each EVA is rehearsed on Earth before being done in space and there are lots of support people during the EVA - it's certainly just not the hourly wage of the astronaut.

And what is this information supposed to be compared against?  What HLV-sized assembly cost info is there?  What HLV-sized assemblies are assumed?

This is like comparing different colored unicorns...

What was the average cost of each (Western) module that was assembled to become the ISS? What was the cost per kg?

BTW, you are missing major costs associated with splitting one module into two. Do they both need ECLSS? Of the dozens of other sub-systems, how many need to be duplicated? How much does that cost? How much extra mass does that add? Docking adapters are heavy, and require both modules to have station keeping systems. Berthing requires an arm, or external services to bring them together. How much cost do they add?

If not duplicated, how much do services connections between modules (power, cooling, etc, etc) increase risk to life of the crew?

Between the two smaller modules, does the volume required to duplicate systems reduce habitable volume so much that a third module needs to be added?

Duplicating systems increases complexity (though also redundancy). More complex systems include more bugs. How much risk to crew survival is introduced by that extra complexity?

Cheers, Martin

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149

Cost estimates. Cost estimates.

Again: you base your argument by comparing costs of launch vehicles and decide that one is better than the other. But doing so shifts the burden to assembly. Do you have cost estimates for assembly? If not, how can you make the cost argument with any confidence?

What are the cost estimates for a beyond-LEO mission with SLS?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
And what about our efforts to create a commercial crew transportation system? 
After the events of this weekend, I'm rethinking what I thought I believed about commercial crew.  I'm feeling more certain about other things, such as that I'm even more certain that SLS, Orion, and RD-180 replacement are essential.

 - Ed Kyle

The webcast thing? It's a faux-pas. But it's an entirely private mission. SpaceX was within their rights not to webcast the launch (eventhough I hated the decision too). At least, they quickly realized their mistake.   
« Last Edit: 06/24/2014 04:21 am by yg1968 »

Offline Sean Lynch

And what about our efforts to create a commercial crew transportation system? 
After the events of this weekend, I'm rethinking what I thought I believed about commercial crew.  I'm feeling more certain about other things, such as that I'm even more certain that SLS, Orion, and RD-180 replacement are essential.

 - Ed Kyle
A lot of us don't have any idea what you were thinking before, during or after the weekend, Ed.
Share your thoughts?
"Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others."
-JFK May 25, 1961

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
What was the average cost of each (Western) module that was assembled to become the ISS? What was the cost per kg?

BTW, you are missing major costs associated with splitting one module into two. Do they both need ECLSS? Of the dozens of other sub-systems, how many need to be duplicated? How much does that cost? How much extra mass does that add? Docking adapters are heavy, and require both modules to have station keeping systems. Berthing requires an arm, or external services to bring them together. How much cost do they add?

If not duplicated, how much do services connections between modules (power, cooling, etc, etc) increase risk to life of the crew?

Between the two smaller modules, does the volume required to duplicate systems reduce habitable volume so much that a third module needs to be added?

Duplicating systems increases complexity (though also redundancy). More complex systems include more bugs. How much risk to crew survival is introduced by that extra complexity?

We could pull together real life costs and provide estimates for what's missing, but then what?  There are no real life costs and estimates for HLV-sized modules and assemblies because none exist.  So what is the basis for comparison?

The real question continues to be what is affordable, not what may or may not be the most efficient method of building large structures in space.

We can expand the ISS and build new structures in space using existing tooling, factories and launchers, which means a much higher percentage of funding for new activity in space can go towards the actual in-space hardware, not things that aren't payloads like new launchers, new factories, and new transportation infrastructure for HLV-sized payloads.

Are larger assembly modules more desirable than smaller ones?  In a scenario where money is not a constraint, absolutely!  But that's not the situation we have today, and the SLS does not fix the money situation, it only makes it worse... something the Augustine panel was concerned would happen.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

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
SLS will not advance the US's spaceflight capability and be more of an anchor on NASA than the shuttle was.  It will be a rocketship to nowhere, where as the shuttle was at least good at servicing the ISS.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34487.msg1183563#msg1183563

Bingo.
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
...A combination of a Falcon Heavy, Atlas 552 and Delta Heavy can may be able to launch the same 100 tons for under $600m or <$6,000/kg.

Fixed that for ya.

It is of crucial importance to use the subjunctive mood whenever it is appropriate in these discussions about possible future costs, and most every other thing that could be done in the future.

A very big problem in the policy side of deliberating upon, and prioritizing, the USG path forward in HSF is that too many policymakers believe as truth things that are simply not true.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
A lot of us don't have any idea what you were thinking before, during or after the weekend, Ed.
Share your thoughts?
Before last weekend I had more enthusiasm for the general commercial crew idea than I do now. 

The Orbcomm campaign has been revealing not for the scrubs - which aren't at all unusual for a new launch system, but for the way SpaceX reacted to the "scrubbed again" headlines by attempting to withdraw from public view.  It wasn't just the webcast, it was the almost unprecedented locking out of the media at the launch site.  I can't imagine a company with that "bunker mentality" launching NASA astronauts.  I wonder if it hints at deeper problems.

And SpaceX isn't the only one retreating to the bunkers.  SNC beat them there by several months. 

All of the commercial crew entries have issues, in my view.  My sense is that the entire program might be spread too thin.  In NASA's history, there are plenty of sobering examples of what can happen to such programs.  They either wither, or they have to be rescued (often after failures) at great cost.  At least history shows that rescue is possible, but it requires a big shake up.

 - Ed Kyle

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
1) A lot of us don't have any idea what you were thinking before, during or after the weekend, Ed.

Before last weekend I had more enthusiasm for the general commercial crew idea than I do now. 

3) The Orbcomm campaign has been revealing not for the scrubs - which aren't at all unusual for a new launch system, but for the way SpaceX reacted to the "scrubbed again" headlines by attempting to withdraw from public view.  It wasn't just the webcast, it was the almost unprecedented locking out of the media at the launch site.  I can't imagine a company with that "bunker mentality" launching NASA astronauts.  I wonder if it hints at deeper problems.

And SpaceX isn't the only one retreating to the bunkers.  SNC beat them there by several months. 

All of the commercial crew entries have issues, in my view.  My sense is that the entire program might be spread too thin.  In NASA's history, there are plenty of sobering examples of what can happen to such programs.  They either wither, or they have to be rescued (often after failures) at great cost.  At least history shows that rescue is possible, but it requires a big shake up.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Ed. ...

I'd like to present an alternative hypothesis, only my opinion, for consideration regarding the blackout;
---
2) We're looking to the point of straining our eyes for the July launch date, hitting refresh on

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ every few seconds. ...

Who didn't mention the blackout to at least one friend or family member?

3) It is my sense that people who otherwise would care less about about space are suddenly taking an interest.  This I find fascinating; the timing of events from the bid protest to the blackout are such that it would seem as if cognitive systems were at work making PR battle plans.

I believe SpaceX PR is based upon an understanding of public psychology and the blackout was a strategic move to intensify sensitivity to SpaceX stimulus. SpaceX has now "programmed" public mass media models that use data based on sources such as twitter et al, to follow SpaceX stories more closely.

I believe every PR move SpaceX makes is strategic. It always seems to work out well for them in the end.
---
But back to reality. ... Can SpaceX really do so much for so little, or are they just blowing smoke?

Time will tell.

Thanks for sharing Ed.

1)  Bet y'all don't know who I had dinner with last Thursday!  Best dinner date ever!  Thanks for askin'.

Thanks for sharing, Ed.

2)  You, Sean, probably need a bit more romance in your life.

The "space" between my friends' eyes gets wider on the few times that I mention HSF.  It's funny, in a way, but it's also pitiful how uninterested in HSF some very intelligent and beautiful people are.  There is no question but that a grassroots program would get more people interested in space.  But good luck with that.

3) Seriously:

A company's culture is grown over time.  The more SpaceX adopts a bunker mentality regarding schedule setbacks and so forth, the more engrained the habit of closed thinking will become in its employees.  Over time, the Peter Principle could be adopted, and blinkers would be mandatorily issued so as to keep employees towing the corporate line.

As we saw with shuttle, given enough time for that tunnel vision focus of corporate or bureacratic culture to become totally adopted, the likely chances of an accident becomes greater, maybe even to the point of inevitability.  I hope we're not seeing the early stages of that culture at SpaceX.

I don't know what the right balance of protecting proprietary info, which both china and ULA, to pick two examples entirely at random, would steal at the drop of a hat, and releasing less than positive info to the public should be. 

Again, I hope that SpaceX is considering the dangers of growing the wrong culture.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2014 01:10 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline CommercialSpaceFan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 1
Assembly can be complex requiring dozens of flights and thousands of hours of astronaut support such as ISS.
 
Alternatively assembly can be as simple as docking.  When Dragon, Cygnus, ATV, HTV and progress dock to ISS very little support is required.  This is analogous to the Apollo missions when the capsule performed the 180 degree turn in LEO to dock with the LEM.  Similarly, crew could be launched separately from a lunar lander only requiring docking prior to Earth departure.  This form of “assembly” doesn’t require additional cost relative to the use of SLS since the equivalent docking will be required in lunar orbit to transfer crew from Orion to the lander.
 
Refueling the upper stage requires at a minimum “soft” docking with a pair of transfer line couplings.  With rendezvous already required for Orion, refueling can be had for the cost of automated couplings and a cryo tank.
 

Cost estimates. Cost estimates.
 
Again: you base your argument by comparing costs of launch vehicles and decide that one is better than the other. But doing so shifts the burden to assembly. Do you have cost estimates for assembly? If not, how can you make the cost argument with any confidence?
 

I totally agree with you that accurate and comparable cost estimates are critical.  How one executes a program can radically change the cost.  Pre ESAS, during the initial round of architecture studies only Orbital suggested using SLS class rockets, the other 6 or so industry teams suggested that exploration would be more affordable using smaller rockets with the increased orbital assembly.  Since ESAS, for many reasons, there has not been a NASA sponsored study really looked at alternatives to heavy lift.  Even the various commissions that have been asked to look at exploration have been provided with the assumption that HLV is required.  In light of this vacuum of information in my post I provide anecdotal evidence that using smaller rockets with propellant transfer could be substantially less expensive than the $1.8B/year that NASA is currently spending on SLS.
 
Dr. Al Wilhite, Dr. Douglas Stanley and company have released a public paper that has tried to provide comparative cost numbers and suggests that the use of smaller rockets can allow exploration within the existing budget.
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/F9Prop.Depot.pdf
 
What we do know is that SLS/Orion are consuming the entire exploration budget.  By NASA’s own planning, the existing SLS/Orion path will only result in 9 launches through 2030 and that there is insufficient budget to support other exploration payloads that will be required to enable exploration.  Per the Augustine commission and concurred with by the NRC, NASA requires an additional $3B/year (doubling the current $3B exploration budget) to execute the current plan. 
 
Under these circumstances doesn’t it make sense to seriously consider and investigate alternatives?

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Indeed it does. The continued lack of any real debate within NASA, on mission, goals, or strategy, is shocking.

Online EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
Indeed it does. The continued lack of any real debate within NASA, on mission, goals, or strategy, is shocking.

That might be because any missions that includes SLS/Orion (beyond an Apollo 8 type deal) are unaffordable under current budget projections. They may feel kind of hemmed in with what they can talk about; not a comfortable place to be, I can imagine.
Scott

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Pre ESAS, during the initial round of architecture studies only Orbital suggested using SLS class rockets, the other 6 or so industry teams suggested that exploration would be more affordable using smaller rockets with the increased orbital assembly.  Since ESAS, for many reasons, there has not been a NASA sponsored study really looked at alternatives to heavy lift. 
NASA was looking at ways to get to the Moon back then, something that smaller rockets could do.  Now, it is tasked with not going back to the Moon, instead going far beyond the Moon.  HLLV is essential for those missions.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Indeed it does. The continued lack of any real debate within NASA, on mission, goals, or strategy, is shocking.

That might be because any missions that includes SLS/Orion (beyond an Apollo 8 type deal) are unaffordable under current budget projections. They may feel kind of hemmed in with what they can talk about; not a comfortable place to be, I can imagine.

Oh, I imagine there is plenty of debate that takes place outside the public eye.  EE is likely correct. I imagine many feel like pawns being played by politicians, pawns being used for pork-barrel purposes rather than being allowed to pursue science in the best manner possible, unfettered by the whims and dictates of those who know very little about engineering or science either one. I'm sure they talk to each other on the quiet all the time and that they give their absolute best effort to do what they can. It's just that we are not privy to those thoughts and conversations. My hat is off to these loyal government employees, doing their best to accomplish what they can in spite of their congressional masters.

Offline Sean Lynch

Indeed it does. The continued lack of any real debate within NASA, on mission, goals, or strategy, is shocking.

That might be because any missions that includes SLS/Orion (beyond an Apollo 8 type deal) are unaffordable under current budget projections. They may feel kind of hemmed in with what they can talk about; not a comfortable place to be, I can imagine.

Oh, I imagine there is plenty of debate that takes place outside the public eye.  EE is likely correct. I imagine many feel like pawns being played by politicians, pawns being used for pork-barrel purposes rather than being allowed to pursue science in the best manner possible, unfettered by the whims and dictates of those who know very little about engineering or science either one. I'm sure they talk to each other on the quiet all the time and that they give their absolute best effort to do what they can. It's just that we are not privy to those thoughts and conversations. My hat is off to these loyal government employees, doing their best to accomplish what they can in spite of their congressional masters.
Very well said TomH.
Lamar Smith's (R-TX) Mars 2021 mission is an example of the discontinuity between congressional space policy and reality.  While I appreciate Smith's goal is to "inspire" with a "real mission" flying by Venus and Mars, the mission is impossible in the given time frame with the current funding and current knowledge.
Smith didn't invite NASA to committee meetings where the Mars 2021 mission was discussed. It seems to me that NASA is treated as a political target of opportunity as opposed to the science agency that is responsible for accomplishing such missions without loss of life.
I cannot see a way for NASA to make steady strides in science, technology and HSF as long as the agency is treated as a political football. Any suggestions?
 
"Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others."
-JFK May 25, 1961

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
.....suggestions?

If NASA were more independent of congressional micromanagement (I believe DARPA has more independence) perhaps they could set their own direction better. OTOH, if that were the case, certain senators would have less interest in keeping the NASA budget at the levels they currently are, so more independence at lower funding or current levels while being micromanaged. It's surely a rock vs hard place situation.

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
Indeed it does. The continued lack of any real debate within NASA, on mission, goals, or strategy, is shocking.

That might be because any missions that includes SLS/Orion (beyond an Apollo 8 type deal) are unaffordable under current budget projections. They may feel kind of hemmed in with what they can talk about; not a comfortable place to be, I can imagine.

Oh, I imagine there is plenty of debate that takes place outside the public eye.  EE is likely correct. I imagine many feel like pawns being played by politicians, pawns being used for pork-barrel purposes ... unfettered by the whims and dictates of those who know very little ... I'm sure they talk to each other on the quiet all the time and that they give their absolute best effort to do what they can. It's just that we are not privy to those thoughts and conversations. ...

As always, the worker bees in industry and bureacracy are, by and large, not the problem.  They would lose their jobs were they to voice anything other than complete agreement with the policies and stragegies that they must undertake.

.....suggestions?

If NASA were more independent of congressional micromanagement...

There is a good argument, I'd say, to increase the term of NASA's administrator to five or more years.  This would have to be accompanied by some kind of personal responsibility of the administrator to accomplish the goals that she set during her term.  Complete loss of a government pension would be the only punishment available, short of law breaking.

Even tho this would cause a new administrator to think long and hard before accepting appointment, it probably wouldn't be sufficient to set NASA on a better course, since congress and industry would still call all the shots on policymaking, and the president of the US would probably take little interest in pragmatic leadership regarding HSF, which would make any administrator's job a thankless one at heart.

I'm just calling 'em like I see 'em.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
.....suggestions?

If NASA were more independent of congressional micromanagement

NASA policy is set by the president and that policy is executed by the Administrator. NASA does not set its own policy. Congress establishes the budget for the agency. Requiring periodic reports on how that budget is expended is called fiduciary responsibility, not micromanagement.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
I would call specifying the technologies to be used in new rockets to be "micromanagement".

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
I would call specifying the technologies to be used in new rockets to be "micromanagement".

So would I.  However congress only specified the throw weight of the new rocket.  Hardly micromanagement.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
.....suggestions?

If NASA were more independent of congressional micromanagement (I believe DARPA has more independence) perhaps they could set their own direction better. OTOH, if that were the case, certain senators would have less interest in keeping the NASA budget at the levels they currently are, so more independence at lower funding or current levels while being micromanaged. It's surely a rock vs hard place situation.

I'm still of the opinion that a more DARPA/ARPA/NACA-like NASA, even with a budget a third of its current size could probably accomplish more lasting good than the existing NASA with its relatively posh budget (that they still whine about).

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
I would call specifying the technologies to be used in new rockets to be "micromanagement".

So would I.  However congress only specified the throw weight of the new rocket.  Hardly micromanagement.

John, several congressmembers are on record as stating that they thought the requirements were set in a way to guarantee contracts to their existing supplier-base. Micromanagement is micromanagement even if you're just gaming the requirements to force a solution.

Plus they did specifically state that CxP contracts had to be novated as much as practicable (not practical, practicable--which means if NASA found that novating a contract was possible but stupid, they'd still be required by law to do it). That's definitely micromanaging, and earmarking.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 07/02/2014 05:59 pm by jongoff »

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
I would call specifying the technologies to be used in new rockets to be "micromanagement".

So would I.  However congress only specified the throw weight of the new rocket.  Hardly micromanagement.

John, several congressmembers are on record as stating that they thought the requirements were set in a way to guarantee contracts to their existing supplier-base. Micromanagement is micromanagement even if you're just gaming the requirements to force a solution.

Plus they did specifically state that CxP contracts had to be novated as much as practicable (not practical, practicable--which means if NASA found that novating a contract was possible but stupid, they'd still be required by law to do it). That's definitely micromanaging, and earmarking.

~Jon

Jon:  I'd definitely go along with the characterization of "gaming the requirements" and "earmarking".  To me, micromanagement takes place on a day to day basis, and the tem is being misused too much.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
I would call specifying the technologies to be used in new rockets to be "micromanagement".

So would I.  However congress only specified the throw weight of the new rocket.  Hardly micromanagement.

John, several congressmembers are on record as stating that they thought the requirements were set in a way to guarantee contracts to their existing supplier-base. Micromanagement is micromanagement even if you're just gaming the requirements to force a solution.

Plus they did specifically state that CxP contracts had to be novated as much as practicable (not practical, practicable--which means if NASA found that novating a contract was possible but stupid, they'd still be required by law to do it). That's definitely micromanaging, and earmarking.

~Jon

Jon:  I'd definitely go along with the characterization of "gaming the requirements" and "earmarking".  To me, micromanagement takes place on a day to day basis, and the tem is being misused too much.

Macromismanagement?

~Jon

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
As always, the worker bees in industry and bureacracy are, by and large, not the problem.  They would lose their jobs were they to voice anything other than complete agreement with the policies and stragegies that they must undertake

To quote Ronald Reagan, There you go again. We had this same conversation just days ago and you wound up apologizing for your knee jerk reaction (your words). Or have you forgotten that already? Once again, I am not referring to the worker bees, something you seem to have a fixation with; I am referring to the managers.

And if you insist on semantics, I will happily substitute gaming the system and earmarking for micromanagement.
« Last Edit: 07/02/2014 08:43 pm by TomH »

Online EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
.....suggestions?

If NASA were more independent of congressional micromanagement

NASA policy is set by the president and that policy is executed by the Administrator. NASA does not set its own policy. Congress establishes the budget for the agency. Requiring periodic reports on how that budget is expended is called fiduciary responsibility, not micromanagement.

The way I remember it, President Obama tried to set the policy, but was significantly rebuffed. He tried to cancel the HLV and Orion, and channel those funds into exploration technology projects. No dice. So I would say that in practice, Congress gets to set the policy right along side the Executive. Maybe in a difference circumstance the president gets to set the policy, but in this case at least it did not happen.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2014 12:35 am by EE Scott »
Scott

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
As always, the worker bees in industry and bureacracy are, by and large, not the problem.  They would lose their jobs were they to voice anything other than complete agreement with the policies and stragegies that they must undertake

To quote Ronald Reagan, There you go again. We had this same conversation just days ago and you wound up apologizing for your knee jerk reaction (your words). ... I am not referring to the worker bees, something you seem to have a fixation with; I am referring to the managers.

And if you insist on semantics, I will happily substitute gaming the system and earmarking for micromanagement.

Love the Reagan quote, but you've parsed over certain subtleties in my argument.  We are largely in accord.

Certainly some senior managers are baked into the bureacracy and could be found fault with for gaming the system.

Jon and I are in tentative accord with the term "macromicromanagement".  [Edit:  Woah.  Old eyes, small fonts.   Se Jon's  post for correct spelling!]

FWIW.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2014 08:00 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
.....suggestions?

If NASA were more independent of congressional micromanagement

NASA policy is set by the president and that policy is executed by the Administrator. NASA does not set its own policy. Congress establishes the budget for the agency. Requiring periodic reports on how that budget is expended is called fiduciary responsibility, not micromanagement.

The way I remember it, President Obama tried to set the policy, but was significantly rebuffed. He tried to cancel the HLV and Orion, and channel those funds into exploration technology projects. No dice. So I would say that in practice, Congress gets to set the policy right along side the Executive. Maybe in a difference circumstance the president gets to set the policy, but in this case at least it did not happen.

At the risk of entering wild west territory, may I simply say that the power brokers in THIS congress have much bigger gonads than the current president. I disagree with this president's policy but it was his choice to back down and run away. He abrogated his responsibility.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
At the risk of entering wild west territory, may I simply say that the power brokers in THIS congress have much bigger gonads than the current president. I disagree with this president's policy but it was his choice to back down and run away. He abrogated his responsibility.

No he didn't, he stated the direction he feels NASA should go and attempted to implement it.  Congress overrode him and he did not feel the issue was worth a protracted fight compared to his other priorities.  Like most in congress space is low man on the totem pole.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

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
At the risk of entering wild west territory, may I simply say that the power brokers in THIS congress have much bigger gonads than the current president. I disagree with this president's policy but it was his choice to back down and run away. He abrogated his responsibility.

No he didn't, he stated the direction he feels NASA should go and attempted to implement it.  Congress overrode him and he did not feel the issue was worth a protracted fight compared to his other priorities.  Like most in congress space is low man on the totem pole.

Mr. Obama "did not feel the issue was worth a protracted fight compared to his other priorities", and therefore, he backed away and abrogated his responsibility.  Mr. Bush did the same thing with VSE, setting the precedent for Mr. Obama, who continues to implement Bush policies.

As an aside, I'm a mite squeamish about Chuck's biology lesson, and tend to avert my eyes.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2014 12:33 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
At the risk of entering wild west territory, may I simply say that the power brokers in THIS congress have much bigger gonads than the current president. I disagree with this president's policy but it was his choice to back down and run away. He abrogated his responsibility.

No he didn't, he stated the direction he feels NASA should go and attempted to implement it.  Congress overrode him and he did not feel the issue was worth a protracted fight compared to his other priorities.  Like most in congress space is low man on the totem pole.

Mr. Obama "did not feel the issue was worth a protracted fight compared to his other priorities", and therefore, he backed away and abrogated his responsibility.  Mr. Bush did the same thing with VSE, setting the precedent for Mr. Obama, who continues to implement Bush policies.

Respectfully, I disagree. What Obama did is called prioritizing. HSF and BFR's have very low priority (yes, believe it or not but there are much more important issues then (human) spaceflight) and thus get paid only a very meager amount of presidential/administration attention. There is no urgent need to extend that attention by getting into a protracted fight with Congress over what the priorities in (human) spaceflight should be. As a result, low priority items sometimes are given a different direction than originally envisioned.
If Obama was to have responsibility of all issues of US national interest, in equal amount, the USA would probably need  a dozen presidents. Because that is how big the presidential workload is.

As an aside, I'm a mite squeamish about Chuck's biology lesson, and tend to avert my eyes.
Chuck threw in the biology lesson to fool Chris' auto correction filter.

Offline Sean Lynch

There is a great deal of important science that NASA needs to accomplish. One cannot argue that NASA has "posh budgets" when climate research and other projects are being cut to increase funding for SLS JCL to reach a level 70% -which according to Bolden is impossible, and not required.

I would like to see funding for NASA projects and priorities based upon peer reviewed technical and scientific merit.
Similar to how the National Labs, DARPA or NSF fund grants.

Sadly, even NSF is not immune to politics. Science and research should be protected from scientific and technically illiterate Luddites offering bills such as the "High Quality Research Act."
(U.S. Lawmaker Proposes New Criteria for Choosing NSF Grants)




"Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others."
-JFK May 25, 1961

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
If Obama was to have responsibility of all issues of US national interest, in equal amount, the USA would probably need  a dozen presidents.

While we are in general agreement about the need for the President to properly prioritize, we are by no means in agreement that his attention should be divided in an "equal amount" for these many priorities.  True, Presidents have to juggle many *cough* balls.

He's been President for six years, and has given one worthless speech on HSF priorities.  Again, he follows Bush's lead.  Mr. Bush gave one speech on VSE.

Neither of these Presidents have come close to giving HSF its proper and appropriately considered leadership.   YMMV.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
No US President is going to give NASA a blank check to explore space. It is not a vital national issue. And that includes JFK. He declared the Moon Race as a symbolic substitute for the nuclear arms race, which was leading us to the brink of annihilation. When Armstrong and his crew landed safely, the mission was over.

NASA's job, and that of the space enthusiast community, is not to wait for a genie to grant us a trip to Mars. We need to propose research and development that will make human spaceflight a practical and sustainable form of commerce, bringing value-added exports and high-tech jobs to America. To accomplish that we don't need to send four civil servants to Mars. We need technology that vastly reduces the cost of human (and robotic) spaceflight and actually wins customers and builds industry. This is not just difficult. It's impossible. So it will take a little longer. The stepping stone to Mars isn't the Moon or an asteroid. It's a viable infrastructure in low Earth orbit where the craft that will go further will be built, just as Willy Ley, and Werner von Braun, and Arthur C. Clark predicted. In the process, we will explore space. It's time to return to our original mission. Not the mission we abandoned when the Moon Race ended, but rather the mission we abandoned when the Moon Race began.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2014 03:15 pm by vulture4 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
It's time to return to our original mission. Not the mission we abandoned when the Moon Race ended, but rather the mission we abandoned when the Moon Race began.
Before JFK decided to go to the Moon, NASA's exploration mission consisted of a few tiny Explorer and Pioneer and precursor weather and communication satellites (today we would call them micro or nano satellites) launched on a handful of small, failure-prone rockets, along with Project Mercury which had achieved a grand total of one manned suborbital flight.  That's the NASA you want to see again?

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/03/2014 03:37 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
It's time to return to our original mission. Not the mission we abandoned when the Moon Race ended, but rather the mission we abandoned when the Moon Race began.
Before JFK decided to go to the Moon, NASA's exploration mission consisted of a few tiny Explorer and Pioneer and precursor weather and communication satellites launched on a handful of small, failure-prone rockets, along with Project Mercury which had achieved a grand total of one manned suborbital flight.  That's the NASA you want to see again?

 - Ed Kyle

The grass is always greener on the other side of the nostalgia fence.

But as for the Mercury suborbital hop, hey, at least it was a manned suborbital hop. :)


Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Neither of these Presidents have come close to giving HSF its proper and appropriately considered leadership.   

Who in your opinion ever has?

Because unless Bush43 and Obama are exceptions to the norm, maybe they are the norm and we just have to accept that.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

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
Neither of these Presidents have come close to giving HSF its proper and appropriately considered leadership.   

Who in your opinion ever has?

JFK was tho only prez to have had the chance to lead in this area of endeavor.
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
No US President is going to give NASA a blank check to explore space. ...

Scanned the thread again.  Didn't see anybody calling for this.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
No US President is going to give NASA a blank check to explore space. ...

Scanned the thread again.  Didn't see anybody calling for this.

Well, no, not in this thread. But there is that "$500 Billion Budget for NASA" thread lurking around here somewhere.

Some might consider $500B a pretty blank check.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

I would like to see funding for NASA projects and priorities based upon peer reviewed technical and scientific merit.
Similar to how the National Labs, DARPA or NSF fund grants.


They already are.  See Decadal surveys, etc.  they are managed by the National Academy of Science

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
No US President is going to give NASA a blank check to explore space. ...

Scanned the thread again.  Didn't see anybody calling for this.

Well, no, not in this thread. But there is that "$500 Billion Budget for NASA" thread lurking around here somewhere.

Some might consider $500B a pretty blank check.

Gotta point with that?

People should know better than to call for peace instead of war.  I guess.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Neither of these Presidents have come close to giving HSF its proper and appropriately considered leadership.   

Who in your opinion ever has?

JFK was tho only prez to have had the chance to lead in this area of endeavor.

And he did it for geo-political reasons, not because he was primarily interested in space exploration.

So absent any other candidates, it appears that Bush43 and Obama represent the norm with regards to supporting space exploration.  And if that is so, then we as a community of space enthusiasts need to stop blaming Presidents for not doing what we want, which if NASASpaceFlight.com is any indication, is all over the map.

I applaud the Augustine Commission for providing some level of clarity about the realities of any efforts we want to do in space, and the NRC report too for emphasizing the financial constraints and challenges.  That neither report was universally applauded or vilified is yet more indication that the space community lacks unity too.

In a way we have too many options available to us, and not enough acknowledged constraints.  Money certainly is not an acknowledged constraint as far as Congress goes, but then again there is a lack of an acknowledged goal within Congress so the outcome is just as bad.

So what to do?  I don't know of any way to unify the space community today - I wish someone did though, but I'm not holding my breath.  What I think will happen is that there will be progress in various private industry and government endeavors as time goes on, and eventually it will become apparent that with a focused push something big could be accomplished.  When that is and what that is I don't know.  But likely it's years.

In the meantime I plan to continue to support those various private industry and government endeavors that are likely to be useful for the future "something big".  But they may not be universally acknowledged to be useful, which brings us back to our current dilemma...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

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
JFK was tho only prez to have had the chance to lead in this area of endeavor.

1) And he did it for geo-political reasons, not because he was primarily interested in space exploration.

2) So absent any other candidates, it appears that Bush43 and Obama represent the norm with regards to supporting space exploration.  ...

3) So what to do?  I don't know of any way to unify the space community today - I wish someone did though, but I'm not holding my breath.  ...

4) In the meantime I plan to continue to support those various private industry and government endeavors ...

1) Which sounds like a disqualification of leadership on his behalf, particularly in the beating of swords into plowshares.

2) These pitiful excuses for leaders are not acceptable as the norm.

3) Well, I've gotta win-win plan...

4) ...which I'd like to think you'd support.

Oh well.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
It's time to return to our original mission. Not the mission we abandoned when the Moon Race ended, but rather the mission we abandoned when the Moon Race began.
Before JFK decided to go to the Moon, NASA's exploration mission consisted of a few tiny Explorer and Pioneer and precursor weather and communication satellites launched on a handful of small, failure-prone rockets, along with Project Mercury which had achieved a grand total of one manned suborbital flight.  That's the NASA you want to see again?

 - Ed Kyle

What we now call NASA was originally created, as the NACA, in 1915, only a dozen years after the Wright Brothers' first flight. Its accomplishments ranged from the first efficient radial engine cowling to the X-15, the world's first (by more than half a century) fully reusable manned spacecraft.  http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4305/contents.htm With the help of the NACA, America's civil aerospace industry, hopelessly behind in 1915, came to lead the world. NACA listened to industrial leaders and helped them with technological innovation. There were no geopolitical stunts. NACA flew only when it needed to to test new engineering concepts. There was no mission to excite the public. Every project, whether theoretical or applied, was intended to be of practical value to industry and the Nation. That's the NASA we need today.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2014 09:24 pm by vulture4 »

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Bush the elder also made a one time speech for a renewed space program.
Not sure about Reagan, but I think he championed Space Station Freedom.
Maybe Clinton and the ISS>

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Bush the elder also made a one time speech for a renewed space program.
Not sure about Reagan, but I think he championed Space Station Freedom.
Maybe Clinton and the ISS>
Reagan introduced the National Aerospace Plane (scramjet to near-orbit) and the Space Station with great fanfare, then failed to fund either one. Station became bogged down in paperwork. We had documents stacked up so high the stacks were in danger of falling over and causing injuries. But no hardware. So much for leadership. Bush 41 initiated the Space Exploration Initiative. He asked what it would cost to send a few people to Mars with the technology of the day (essentially SLS/Orion level). NASA gave him an honest answer; $400B. He dropped the idea like a hot potato. Congress and NASA learned their lesson regarding cost. Don't ask, don't tell. The fact that this is a sure path to failure is irrelevant.

So no, I don't think we can blame Obama for our current lack of progress. If we want a better program, we need to bring better ideas. And Congress needs to stop buying pork barrels and listen.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2014 09:37 pm by vulture4 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
JFK was tho only prez to have had the chance to lead in this area of endeavor.

1) And he did it for geo-political reasons, not because he was primarily interested in space exploration.

2) So absent any other candidates, it appears that Bush43 and Obama represent the norm with regards to supporting space exploration.  ...

3) So what to do?  I don't know of any way to unify the space community today - I wish someone did though, but I'm not holding my breath.  ...

4) In the meantime I plan to continue to support those various private industry and government endeavors ...

1) Which sounds like a disqualification of leadership on his behalf, particularly in the beating of swords into plowshares.

Not sure you understand how Apollo helped us over the USSR.  Ultimately we caused them to over-spend, and Apollo was part of that effort to get them to over-spend.

But if you mean "disqualification of leadership" for space exploration, OK, but the same can be said for every other President of the modern era.  Which was my point.

Quote
2) These pitiful excuses for leaders are not acceptable as the norm.

If space exploration was some sort of "right", then sure, they haven't accomplished a lot.  But space exploration is NOT a "right", so as far as most of the U.S. voters are concerned it's not an issue to judge any politician by.

Quote
3) Well, I've gotta win-win plan...

4) ...which I'd like to think you'd support.

No need to keep it secret, and this is a pretty flat hierarchy we have here so there is no one you need to seek permission from before announcing it.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Not sure you understand how Apollo helped us over the USSR.  Ultimately we caused them to over-spend, and Apollo was part of that effort to get them to over-spend.

Apollo was a "hearts and minds" public relations exercise directed at the undecided countries - it stopped some governments from going communist that otherwise might have. It also contributed somewhat to US morale in the early 60s, but was largely ineffective by the end of the decade.

You're thinking of the "Reagan Won The Cold War" rhetoric that is more commonly attributed to stealth technology - which has also been widely discredited. The cold war was ended by simple economic decay. It wouldn't have taken so long if the US and other western allies hadn't sent so much relief to eastern bloc countries.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

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
Not sure you understand how Apollo helped us over the USSR. 

You raise some interesting points.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Not sure you understand how Apollo helped us over the USSR.  Ultimately we caused them to over-spend, and Apollo was part of that effort to get them to over-spend.

Apollo was a "hearts and minds" public relations exercise directed at the undecided countries...

Agreed.

Quote
The cold war was ended by simple economic decay.

I agree that what Reagan did overall was more of a final push than the whole effect on the USSR economy, but the space race played it's part in forcing the Soviets to spend money on things that did not directly benefit the lives of their citizens.  It contributed to what is now known as the overall decay of their command economy.  To what degree I don't know, and Kennedy would not have known what effect Apollo was going to have on the Soviet economy either, so it was an unintended side effect.

I'm sure I could come up with an analogy between the SLS and the Soviet economy, but I'll restrain myself...   ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Sean Lynch

I'm sure I could come up with an analogy between the SLS and the Soviet economy, but I'll restrain myself...   ;)
That cracked me up Coastal Ron :D
"Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others."
-JFK May 25, 1961

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
In the 2010 appropriation, Congress directed that the SLS and Orion be built, and that the SLS use Shuttle engines, leaving no alternative but to use SRBs built by Thiokol. Congress defined much more than the payload mass. In fact Boeing has just (after billions in fees) signed its first formal contract, still with no competition. Micromanagement? Yes.
« Last Edit: 07/04/2014 02:13 am by vulture4 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
It's time to return to our original mission. Not the mission we abandoned when the Moon Race ended, but rather the mission we abandoned when the Moon Race began.
Before JFK decided to go to the Moon, NASA's exploration mission consisted of a few tiny Explorer and Pioneer and precursor weather and communication satellites launched on a handful of small, failure-prone rockets, along with Project Mercury which had achieved a grand total of one manned suborbital flight.  That's the NASA you want to see again?

 - Ed Kyle
What we now call NASA was originally created, as the NACA, in 1915, only a dozen years after the Wright Brothers' first flight. Its accomplishments ranged from the first efficient radial engine cowling to the X-15, the world's first (by more than half a century) fully reusable manned spacecraft.  http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4305/contents.htm With the help of the NACA, America's civil aerospace industry, hopelessly behind in 1915, came to lead the world. NACA listened to industrial leaders and helped them with technological innovation. There were no geopolitical stunts. NACA flew only when it needed to to test new engineering concepts. There was no mission to excite the public. Every project, whether theoretical or applied, was intended to be of practical value to industry and the Nation. That's the NASA we need today.
The NASA you dream of would not have put Curiosity, or any robotic spacecraft, on Mars.  It would never have launched a Surveyor or a Lunar Orbiter or a Mariner, Viking, or Voyager.  It wouldn't have orbited Hubble.  It wouldn't have given us this.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/04/2014 04:00 am by edkyle99 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
The NASA you dream of would not have put Curiosity, or any robotic spacecraft, on Mars.  It would never have launched a Surveyor or a Lunar Orbiter or a Mariner, Viking, or Voyager.  It wouldn't have orbited Hubble.  It wouldn't have given us this.

All of that could have happened the same way every other sort of science funding happens, and even more could have been done because there would actually be a competitive industry to do those things instead of pork politics.
« Last Edit: 07/04/2014 06:50 am by QuantumG »
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
The NASA you dream of would not have put Curiosity, or any robotic spacecraft, on Mars.

Alternate reality fiction is fun to read, but it's still fiction.  We are where we are, and the question is where do we go from here?

Mandating that NASA follow a path of using unique hardware that is so expensive that NASA can't build and develop missions in parallel is one way.  And that was an issue that the Augustine Commission brought up in their concluding observations:

"In the case of NASA, one result of this dilemma is that in order to pursue major new programs, existing programs have had to be terminated, sometimes prematurely. Thus, the demise of the Space Shuttle and the birth of “the gap.” Unless recognized and dealt with, this pattern will continue."

That pattern is continuing with the SLS and the Orion.  And as the saying goes:

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Going forward from where we are today, the question is really whether our future in space is NASA-only, or is it going to be a mix of NASA, industry/commercial and international partners?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
1) And he did it for geo-political reasons, not because he was primarily interested in space exploration.

2) So absent any other candidates, it appears that Bush43 and Obama represent the norm with regards to supporting space exploration.  ...

3) So what to do?  I don't know of any way to unify the space community today - I wish someone did though, but I'm not holding my breath.  ...

4) In the meantime I plan to continue to support those various private industry and government endeavors ...

1) Which sounds like a disqualification of leadership on his behalf, particularly in the beating of swords into plowshares.

2) These pitiful excuses for leaders are not acceptable as the norm.

3) Well, I've gotta win-win plan...

4) ...which I'd like to think you'd support.

Oh well.
1) In case you had not noticed: Kennedy failed miserably in the part of beating swords into plowshares. The worst in Vietnam was yet to come as a result of Kennedy's authorization to expend US military involvement in Vietnam. Another disqualification of Kennedy's leadership abilities was the Bay of Pigs-incident.

2) They may not be acceptable as the norm to you, but fact is that they ARE the norm.

3) In stead of suggesting you have something better, reveal it. Put up or sh*t up.
« Last Edit: 07/04/2014 08:23 am by woods170 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Reagan introduced the National Aerospace Plane (scramjet to near-orbit) and the Space Station with great fanfare, then failed to fund either one. Station became bogged down in paperwork.

To be fair, though, advocates of the Plane (NASP, aka X-30) were claiming that it would cost little to develop.  Somewhere online recently I read an article by an engineer who attended an aerospace conference at the time.  One morning he attended a presentation about the construction of shuttle orbiter Atlantis, which was projected to cost a couple of billion or so.  In the afternoon, he attended a presentation on the NASP.  Its projected cost was $5 billion.  Yet it didn't seem to occur to anybody that if just building another orbiter cost a couple of billion, the entirely new and novel NASP would have to cost far more than claimed.
« Last Edit: 07/04/2014 08:56 am by Proponent »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Bush 41 initiated the Space Exploration Initiative. He asked what it would cost to send a few people to Mars with the technology of the day (essentially SLS/Orion level). NASA gave him an honest answer; $400B. He dropped the idea like a hot potato. Congress and NASA learned their lesson regarding cost. Don't ask, don't tell. The fact that this is a sure path to failure is irrelevant.

"Don't ask, don't tell" -- that's brilliant.  It describes Orion/SLS perfectly.

It's a sure path to failure, however, only if the objective is space exploration.  If the objective is government money to certain districts, it's pretty successful.

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
I'm sure I could come up with an analogy between the SLS and the Soviet economy, but I'll restrain myself...   ;)
That cracked me up Coastal Ron :D

The best point he's made so far!
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
1) In case you had not noticed: Kennedy failed miserably in the part of beating swords into plowshares. The worst in Vietnam was yet to come as a result of Kennedy's authorization to expend US military involvement in Vietnam. Another disqualification of Kennedy's leadership abilities was the Bay of Pigs-incident.

2) They may not be acceptable as the norm to you, but fact is that they ARE the norm.

3) In stead of suggesting you have something better, reveal it. Put up or sh*t up.

3) Perhaps you could issue a courtesy flush, or get out of the stall?  I have certainly put up.

2) I will not accept the new "norm" that you seem to be supporting.

1) Changing the topic to the Vietnam War, when the clear topic is space is not acceptable to me either:

Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.
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
If space exploration was some sort of "right", blah, blah, blah

Back from spending the fourth with a dear friend.  It was great to celebrate the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of inappropriate humor.  For this last, I have been warned that Tuesday's yoga class will be particularly difficult for me.

But yeah, space exploration is a right, since for our happiness, that's what we asked our government to do some forty years ago.  For a few brief moments there, and a few "small steps for mankind", it looked like the perfection of the Union, another word for yoga BTW, was to be an important part of the necessary work of this democracy.

.  What is it good for?  Somebody oughta write a song.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
The NASA you dream of would not have put Curiosity, or any robotic spacecraft, on Mars.  It would never have launched a Surveyor or a Lunar Orbiter or a Mariner, Viking, or Voyager.  It wouldn't have orbited Hubble.  It wouldn't have given us this.
All of that could have happened the same way every other sort of science funding happens, and even more could have been done because there would actually be a competitive industry to do those things instead of pork politics.
Not if vulture-4's dream of a reborn NACA that does no exploration, only practical science useful to industry, took place.  There is no industrial utility in photos of the Moon or Mars.

Space Shuttle cost $200 billion.  ISS cost $100 billion.  SLS/Orion is small potatoes by comparison.  Bumping up the budget over a period of time to get back to Shuttle era funding levels could put U.S. astronauts on Mars.  Those who call for less are calling for shrinking NASA, in vogue on Internet forums, but Internet forums had they existed would have complained bitterly about the costs of Apollo, the Interstate Highway System, the Panama Canal, and Lewis & Clark.   

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/06/2014 03:54 am by edkyle99 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Those things cost so much because they're bespoke exotica built by an immature industry. If you had commissioned the Wright brothers to build you a jumbo jet in the 1920s you would have gotten something just as expensive and makeshift. The aircraft industry we have today is the result of a pragmatic focus on research and development, much of which was done by NACA. The same could have been done for launch vehicles and spacecraft, instead of handing out sweetheart deals for the last 50 years.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Those things cost so much because they're bespoke exotica built by an immature industry. If you had commissioned the Wright brothers to build you a jumbo jet in the 1920s you would have gotten something just as expensive and makeshift. The aircraft industry we have today is the result of a pragmatic focus on research and development, much of which was done by NACA. The same could have been done for launch vehicles and spacecraft, instead of handing out sweetheart deals for the last 50 years.

Indeed, but where's the big time pork in that?  Sure you could ladle out researcn to all the current centers and more., but it's just not as sexy as huge manufacturing facilities...
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
The NASA you dream of would not have put Curiosity, or any robotic spacecraft, on Mars.  It would never have launched a Surveyor or a Lunar Orbiter or a Mariner, Viking, or Voyager.  It wouldn't have orbited Hubble.  It wouldn't have given us this.
All of that could have happened the same way every other sort of science funding happens, and even more could have been done because there would actually be a competitive industry to do those things instead of pork politics.
Not if vulture-4's dream of a reborn NACA that does no exploration, only practical science useful to industry, took place.  There is no industrial utility in photos of the Moon or Mars.

Space Shuttle cost $200 billion.  ISS cost $100 billion.  SLS/Orion is small potatoes by comparison.

But Orion/SLS, by itself, is just about useless.  Hab modules, landers, and other expensive things would be needed too.

Quote
Bumping up the budget over a period of time to get back to Shuttle era funding levels could put U.S. astronauts on Mars.

At least as far as NASA-managed programs based on Shuttle-derived heavy lift go, Augustine and the NRC both disagree with you.  If somebody could show why Augustine and NRC are wrong, that would be very interesting.  But so far, nobody has.

Quote
Those who call for less are calling for shrinking NASA, in vogue on Internet forums, but Internet forums had they existed would have complained bitterly about the costs of Apollo, the Interstate Highway System, the Panama Canal, and Lewis & Clark.

The cost itself isn't the problem, at least from my point of view.  The problem is that the government does not seem interested in paying (or even seriously discussing) the costs of Orion/SLS-based exploration.  Even hard-core SLS supporters like Reps. Palazzo and Brooks have said over the last year that NASA's budget is not going up a lot.  Palazzo even went to some length during a space subcommittee meeting to explain why, presenting multiple charts about the pressure that mandatory spending puts on the discretionary portion of the budget.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2014 10:20 am by Proponent »

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Those things cost so much because they're bespoke exotica built by an immature industry. If you had commissioned the Wright brothers to build you a jumbo jet in the 1920s you would have gotten something just as expensive and makeshift. The aircraft industry we have today is the result of a pragmatic focus on research and development, much of which was done by NACA. The same could have been done for launch vehicles and spacecraft, instead of handing out sweetheart deals for the last 50 years.

Indeed, but where's the big time pork in that?  Sure you could ladle out researcn to all the current centers and more., but it's just not as sexy as huge manufacturing facilities...

Unfortunately, Congress prefers to turn everything into a jobs program for their local district instead of what is good for the country. NASA, DOD, etc. have to spend money on wasteful projects instead of what they want.

It's really a byproduct of campaign finance reform gone bad. Decades ago, politicians used to get their campaign money from their political parties. Now they have to raise the money themselves. If a member of Congress can get money from a big corporation and have the big corporation build a factory in their district, it's a win-win situation. It's all part of the system.

Of course, that usually means better ideas are ignored unless that better idea can make a lot of money for big corporations.

Basically, if you want a better HSF BEO program, you need to think of a plan that gives big aerospace something to bill USGOV for vast sums of money and that will keep politicians in office by spending that money in their districts. However, most conservatives are big on budget cutting and most liberals believe NASA takes away from social programs, so no more money for NASA.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
I’m going to say something I’ve said before. Since no real increases are forthcoming I look at it from a different perspective that NASA needs to consolidate its centers and reduce the numbers by ½.  The current level of funding is all the nation is interested in or comfortable with...
« Last Edit: 07/06/2014 01:08 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

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 NASA you dream of would not have put Curiosity, or any robotic spacecraft, on Mars.  It would never have launched ...

All of that could have happened the same way every other sort of science funding happens, and ... there would actually be a competitive industry to do those things instead of pork politics.

Not if vulture-4's dream of a reborn NACA that does no exploration, only practical science useful to industry, took place.  There is no industrial utility in photos of the Moon or Mars.

Space Shuttle cost $200 billion.  ISS cost $100 billion.  SLS/Orion is small potatoes by comparison.  Bumping up the budget over a period of time to get back to Shuttle era funding levels could put U.S. astronauts on Mars.  ...

I don't think Vulture-4 thought out his musings all that thoroughly, and he could certainly clarify and expand on his thoughts if he so chose.

I don't think Ed has thoroughly outlined his thoughts either.  Certainly, there's no "industrial utility in photos".  But that's what we're getting from Curiosity, is it not?  Plus, where's the "practical science useful to industry" in the ability of Curiosity to drill holes in martian rocks?

True, on the face of it, that SLS is projected to cost far less than shuttle or ISS.  But what is the proper characterization of the costs of the several failed launch vehicle programs between shuttle and SLS.  Waste?

What about the idea that shuttle era funding could put astros on Mars?  I thought shuttle era funding only featured the capability to orbit Earth.  Additionally, with the aerospace inflation rate virtually mandated as twenty percent or so, we can only do less with more for the foreseeble future.

Finally, there's the question that, if Mars is so affordable thanks to SLS, how come Luna is completely impossible with the same launch vehicle?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Sean Lynch

The NASA you dream of would not have put Curiosity, or any robotic spacecraft, on Mars.  It would never have launched ...

All of that could have happened the same way every other sort of science funding happens, and ... there would actually be a competitive industry to do those things instead of pork politics.

Not if vulture-4's dream of a reborn NACA that does no exploration, only practical science useful to industry, took place.  There is no industrial utility in photos of the Moon or Mars.

Space Shuttle cost $200 billion.  ISS cost $100 billion.  SLS/Orion is small potatoes by comparison.  Bumping up the budget over a period of time to get back to Shuttle era funding levels could put U.S. astronauts on Mars.  ...

I don't think Vulture-4 thought out his musings all that thoroughly, and he could certainly clarify and expand on his thoughts if he so chose.

I don't think Ed has thoroughly outlined his thoughts either.  Certainly, there's no "industrial utility in photos".  But that's what we're getting from Curiosity, is it not?  Plus, where's the "practical science useful to industry" in the ability of Curiosity to drill holes in martian rocks?

True, on the face of it, that SLS is projected to cost far less than shuttle or ISS.  But what is the proper characterization of the costs of the several failed launch vehicle programs between shuttle and SLS.  Waste?

What about the idea that shuttle era funding could put astros on Mars?  I thought shuttle era funding only featured the capability to orbit Earth.  Additionally, with the aerospace inflation rate virtually mandated as twenty percent or so, we can only do less with more for the foreseeble future.

Finally, there's the question that, if Mars is so affordable thanks to SLS, how come Luna is completely impossible with the same launch vehicle?

Inquiring minds want to know.
"Plus, where's the "practical science useful to industry" in the ability of Curiosity to drill holes in martian rocks?"
Many fail to appreciate the complexity of operating a robot without a teaching pendant and fixed reference frames.  The spin-off is autonomous robotics.
How about portable mass spectrometers and and gas chromatography?
Analysis equipment has typically been bulky and fragile.
I can imagine an emergent "ChemVan" industry for industrial QA, environmental monitoring and threat detection.
Certified results on the spot. No more shipping samples off to Galbraith Labs and waiting for results...
-just my 2cW.
"Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others."
-JFK May 25, 1961

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Finally, there's the question that, if Mars is so affordable thanks to SLS, how come Luna is completely impossible with the same launch vehicle?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Who said it is? There may be some difficulties but Elon Musk once said they may go to the moon just to demonstrate they can. The biggest difficulty would be that return from Mars assumes fuel ISRU. That would not be possible on the moon. Refuelling after leaving LEO may be necessary.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Bumping up the budget over a period of time to get back to Shuttle era funding levels could put U.S. astronauts on Mars.
 - Ed Kyle

I don't disagree, and I would be happy to see it. I just think it's unlikely. I've worked at the grass roots, trying to build support for human spaceflight. There are many who support it. There are few willing to pay. I think we can do much more with the money we have, if we start by finding ways to reduce the cost. This will also allow spaceflight to become a viable commercial industry, creating jobs and benefiting our economy.

Quote
True, on the face of it, that SLS is projected to cost far less than shuttle or ISS.

Comparing apples to apples, SLS is projected to cost considerably more than Shuttle was originally projected to cost. The actual cost of SLS is anybody's guess, but I would not be suprised if, per flight, it turns out to be higher than the actual cost of Shuttle.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2014 05:35 pm by vulture4 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Finally, there's the question that, if Mars is so affordable thanks to SLS, how come Luna is completely impossible with the same launch vehicle?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Who said it is? There may be some difficulties but Elon Musk once said they may go to the moon just to demonstrate they can.

Or they may not.  In any case what Elon Musk wants or doesn't want to do has nothing to do with NASA.

The main question for NASA is what can it do within the current budget profile?

Just in recent memory the Constellation program would have required a large budget bump in order to afford to develop and build hardware needed for going to the Moon, but even with that increased budget the Augustine Commission didn't think NASA would get to the Moon before the mid-2030's.

Of course NASA never got that extra money, and has actually seen it's budget cut in a very bipartisan way in Congress.

So NASA is not being funded anywhere close to the amount needed to start a routine launch schedule for the SLS, which is why so many of us continue to point out the futility of building an HLV if there is no money to use it.

And Mars?

If anything the talk about Mars is just justification for spending money to do studies, and those studies have no chance of changing anything.

With shrinking budgets and huge mismatches between political mandates and funding for the mandates, there is a reset coming soon for NASA.  It won't be pretty, but the big question is whether NASA will come out of it leaner and more prepared for the future, or just more bogged down in political intervention...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
I agree with Ron on this. In 25 years in the business I have never seen such a disconnect as we have now between the claims from Congress and the Administration that we are not just going to Mars, but doing it with SLS/Orion, and the actual funding and national commitment that are available. I cannot explain it. If you question the obvious unreality of the situation and suggest more realistic goals you are looked upon as not a team player.

As to ISRU, the people claiming it will reduce cost have never tried to manufacture even a dozen few tons of fuel. It takes major infrastructure to produce rocket-spec propellant, and a lot of money to get that infrastructure to Mars. And you can't refuel stages that are expended before you reach the final destination.

There are hundreds of real, useful, practical projects that people at every NASA center propose every year for an average of ~$200K that get rejected because of lack of funds. Some of these projects could be of real benefit to our country. One billion in spending for a giant rocket means five thousand serious research proposals have been rejected. 

There is a book that describes the seven deadly sins of business innovation. One of them is an inordinate fascination with projects that are shiny and exciting but of no practical value. It's called lust.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2014 08:31 pm by vulture4 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Not if vulture-4's dream of a reborn NACA that does no exploration, only practical science useful to industry, took place.  There is no industrial utility in photos of the Moon or Mars.

For me the vision of getting NASA back to being more NACA-like doesn't mean that the U.S. Government wouldn't want to still do science in space, just that it wouldn't rely on doing it all with in-house assets.  The U.S. Government pays for all kinds of science, so thinking that just because NASA wouldn't have the capability in-house to do the science that the science wouldn't get done is not valid.

Quote
Space Shuttle cost $200 billion.  ISS cost $100 billion.  SLS/Orion is small potatoes by comparison.

I don't call $30B small potatoes, especially when there is no known need for the SLS right off the bat.  By comparison the Shuttle had all the relevant government entities (i.e. NASA, DoD/NRO, etc.) planning to be reliant on the new government transportation infrastructure, and agreements with industry to use the Shuttle too - it was a grand experiment in creating a general purpose space transportation system.  The SLS has no such equivalent and so far only NASA is the potential user.

For the ISS the comparison is even more stark, since 15 countries are committed to using the ISS - and have been.  The SLS has no such equivalent and so far only NASA is the potential user.

So it's not the size of the budget, but the projected utility that is the real measure.  The ROI.  And without a budget to use the SLS the ROI for it is pretty bad.

Quote
...but Internet forums had they existed would have complained bitterly about the costs of Apollo, the Interstate Highway System, the Panama Canal, and Lewis & Clark.   

Public support for Apollo wasn't high prior to the Moon landings, but from a Moon landing standpoint it was interesting enough that there was enough support for it.  Lewis and Clark didn't cost that much, and again the U.S. Government funds lots of exploration and research outside of space, so funding this during our nations period of exploration made sense - what the heck was on the other side of the country?

For the Interstate Highway System and the Panama Canal, those are both good examples of where the transportation users of the time were absolutely behind both of those projects.  They are good examples of where large expenditures make sense when you've already proven out the need, and where in contrast the SLS struggles to identify ANY need outside of it's own test program.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Finally, there's the question that, if Mars is so affordable thanks to SLS, how come Luna is completely impossible with the same launch vehicle?

Who said it is?

Well, Gen. Bolden said it at least three times during the .  At about 0:32, he tells Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the science committee.  At 0:54 he tells Rep. Stewart, and at 1:07 he tells Rep. Posey.  By the way, he also mentions at 1:02 that NASA can't afford to visit a free-range asteroid either. 

Quote
There may be some difficulties but Elon Musk once said they may go to the moon just to demonstrate they can.

I believe he was referring to a lunar flyby or orbital mission, not a landing.  The bigger point is what Coastal Ron has pointed out, however: what SpaceX might be able to do with it's cheaper systems has little to do with what NASA can do if it must use SLS.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Human flight to Mars has been portrayed as an existential goal, something worth any price. If this were the case, going to the Moon would indeed be irrelevant. But I think it is more accurate to regard human flight to either the Moon or Mars as a luxury good; something with considerable, but finite, value. It makes sense to go to the Moon or to Mars if the value of going there exceeds the cost. Right now neither trip is worth making. If technology can be advanced that reduces the cost, either or both trips may become practical, depending in each case upon both cost and value..
« Last Edit: 07/07/2014 09:02 pm by vulture4 »

Offline OpsAnalyst

Human flight to Mars has been portrayed as an existential goal, something worth any price. If this were the case, going to the Moon would indeed be irrelevant. But I think it is more accurate to regard human flight to either the Moon or Mars as a luxury good; something with considerable, but finite, value. It makes sense to go to the Moon or to Mars if the value of going there exceeds the cost. Right now neither trip is worth making. If technology can be advanced that reduces the cost, either or both trips may become practical, depending in each case upon both cost and value..

Define "value"....

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Human flight to Mars has been portrayed as an existential goal, something worth any price. If this were the case, going to the Moon would indeed be irrelevant. But I think it is more accurate to regard human flight to either the Moon or Mars as a luxury good; something with considerable, but finite, value. It makes sense to go to the Moon or to Mars if the value of going there exceeds the cost. Right now neither trip is worth making. If technology can be advanced that reduces the cost, either or both trips may become practical, depending in each case upon both cost and value..

Define "value"....

In the luxury goods & services market it is whatever people have a desire to pay for.  Virgin Galactic is the most relevant example, with people prepared to pay $200,000 to take a ride to a place few others have visited.  And the Space Adventures offer to take people to the orbit of the Moon.

The challenge though is whether there is enough of a market to create a sustainable business model.  At least for the two companies I cited, I don't think we know that yet.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

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
Well, Gen. Bolden said it at least three times during the House space subcommittee's hearing on NASA's FY 2014 budget on 24 April 2013.  At about 0:32, he tells Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the science committee.  At 0:54 he tells Rep. Stewart, and at 1:07 he tells Rep. Posey.  By the way, he also mentions at 1:02 that NASA can't afford to visit a free-range asteroid either.

He said all that in just over a minute?  Dang.  How come these hearings drag on so?

Ohhhhhh....

I did check out Bolden's commentary around the 32 minute mark.  As is well known, nobody can define "value".  But if somebody wants a primer on how to define waffling, it would be Mr. Bolden's rambling few minutes of testimony shortly before 32:50.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Human flight to Mars has been portrayed as an existential goal, something worth any price. If this were the case, going to the Moon would indeed be irrelevant. But I think it is more accurate to regard human flight to either the Moon or Mars as a luxury good; something with considerable, but finite, value. It makes sense to go to the Moon or to Mars if the value of going there exceeds the cost. Right now neither trip is worth making. If technology can be advanced that reduces the cost, either or both trips may become practical, depending in each case upon both cost and value..

Define "value"....

In the luxury goods & services market it is whatever people have a desire to pay for.  Virgin Galactic is the most relevant example, with people prepared to pay $200,000 to take a ride to a place few others have visited.  And the Space Adventures offer to take people to the orbit of the Moon.

The challenge though is whether there is enough of a market to create a sustainable business model.  At least for the two companies I cited, I don't think we know that yet.

The demand for luxury goods is highly sensitive to price. At $60M per seat, only the US government is in the market, for its price-insensitive 6-8 seats per year. At $20M one or two tourists a year visited the ISS; some went twice! Two market studies suggested that if the price of a ride to orbit can be reduced to ~$1M, the market size (government, industry, tourist) might exceed 100 seats per year, enough for a viable commercial market. The market for human spaceflight is driven by the curves of supply and demand. Creating a viable market depends on shifting the supply curve to the left. Shifting the demand curve to the right (i.e. by increasing government purchases) will generate a few sales but will actually raise the equilibrium price, as we saw when Shuttle was retired and the demand for Soyuz seats increased.
« Last Edit: 07/09/2014 08:28 pm by vulture4 »

Offline OpsAnalyst

Well, Gen. Bolden said it at least three times during the House space subcommittee's hearing on NASA's FY 2014 budget on 24 April 2013.  At about 0:32, he tells Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the science committee.  At 0:54 he tells Rep. Stewart, and at 1:07 he tells Rep. Posey.  By the way, he also mentions at 1:02 that NASA can't afford to visit a free-range asteroid either.

He said all that in just over a minute?  Dang.  How come these hearings drag on so?

Ohhhhhh....

I did check out Bolden's commentary around the 32 minute mark.  As is well known, nobody can define "value".  But if somebody wants a primer on how to define waffling, it would be Mr. Bolden's rambling few minutes of testimony shortly before 32:50.

You mean _General_ Bolden.

And there are plenty of ways to define "value".  That's why I asked the question.  Economic value defined by creation of jobs, or return on investment (a specific type generated as a result of infusion of capital against a baseline or initial value as defined by estimate or market cap), or the more amorphous types, which I would agree are difficult to define but can be assessed in relation to other value, depending upon the context....or the purely "subjective" sense of value, which I would agree cannot be well characterized.  I was just asking what the poster meant by the term.
« Last Edit: 07/09/2014 10:27 pm by OpsAnalyst »

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
I am certain that NASA's administrator is a civilian, not an active member of hte military. Maybe I'm sounding like I'm channelling Robin Thick, but I don't like blurred lines when it comes to governance.

Anyhow, the typical dismissal around here is "define such-and-such", as if to imply that should a poster actually provide a definition, then and only then would the poster's opinion be valid.  This is simply not the case, because the conversation always devolves into a he said, she said rant about the definition.

There is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission.  By their own telling, it is a mission whose proximate cause is only to showcase hardware for an impressive technical capability.  There is no ultimate cause for such a capability.  There is no ultimate value for the mission; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.

Quote from: Vulture4
If technology can be advanced that reduces the cost, either or both trips may become practical, depending in each case upon both cost and value.

Neither do I read an innocent asking of what Vulture "meant", when he made the emminently acceptable observation that, depending on the broad dictionary definitions of "cost" and "value", that "practical" utility of the technology requred might be achieved.

Again, in this case, and on this specific, exact, narrowly defined topic, there is no "value" that need be defined by a scientificist community in order for Vulture's statement to hold in general.

Period.   Sheesh.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2014 12:14 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
There is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission.  By their own telling, it is a mission whose proximate cause is only to showcase hardware for an impressive technical capability.  There is no ultimate cause for such a capability.  There is no ultimate value for the mission; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.
If the plan was to push and return the DSH to L2, one leg of the ARM so to speak, then this demonstrates engineering value, as it represent the actual architecture, albeit a shorter leg to another destination.   DSH is not a station stuck at a location, but a re-useable voyager, a lunar emergency egress, a satellite assembly and servicer, a lab to gather crew health data.   It gives a payload to demonstrate a reusable tug.   At the minimum, the presence of the crew adds value simply by providing exposure to the proper environment for a longer duration, but the ability to service in-situ that unknown defect serves both the science and HSF objectives.

Recall that having deep space missions like L2 satellite and assembly, ARM will be important to provide flight rate as long as they do not break the bank.  So development and launch costs are one issue with Value.  THE issue is crew health and the mass impacts, combined with cost and time frame to resolve.  Sending a dozen or so folks to L2 for a few months, then 4, 6, 8 , 10, 12 months to demonstrate crew and hardware can survive the trip to Mars otherwise may simply not present too much excitement--hence the need for flexible path.   But if the latter is true, it is even more important to cut the launch and per unit mission costs.   So why not turn one of these research missions into a trip?   In many ways its a Apollo 8 flyby.  The issue is the COST vs the benefits:value.    Crew sent to lunar for a 6 day sortie, but return to DSH for a longer duration stay prior to the return to earth--a dual purpose mission :)

The issue with ARM is that it included SLS and Orion and resulted in a 40B mission that does not fit any part of a real architecture to explore.

If crew health issues are resolved, then these ARM missions are simply stepping stones to the Mars and beyond and would clearly be of value as long as they fit the overall architecture and steps to certify the hardware for the destinations.  If crew health and mass issues are not resolved, at least part of the technical challenges are being address with a DSH, and not being stuck under the ARM of SLS/Orion.

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
There is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission.  ...  There is no ultimate value for the mission; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.

If the plan was to push and return the DSH to L2, one leg of the ARM so to speak, then this demonstrates engineering value...

If crew health issues are resolved, then these ARM missions are simply stepping stones to Mars and beyond and would clearly be of value as long as they fit the overall architecture and steps to certify the hardware for the destinations.  If crew health and mass issues are not resolved, at least part of the technical challenges are being address with a DSH, and not being stuck under the ARM of SLS/Orion.

I'm perfectly willing to accept your blurry idea of the term 'value'. There is no other way that we could converse on this exotic speculation about the distant, virtually completely unsure future.

In general, the health issues of zero gee and radiation and sheer ECLSS capability, among a great many other things, need to be solved before colonizing Mars.  You do realize that the short list of "ifs" that you raise do not "clearly" indicate future value, because the "ifs" are not all on the verge of being turned into "whens".

The ARM, hastily drawn up, is being falsely presented as a "stepping stone", when there is no overall strategy for NASA programs to survive political cycles and to actually strive towards an attempt at martian colonization.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Sean Lynch

While ARM gives the ability for SLS/Orion to do some thing, anything, with minimal payload development costs there is still some science to be gained from asteroid sampling depending on it's type, carbonaceous, silicon. or metallic.
A serious question:
What other science could be done with SLS/Orion without a funded payload and limited life support the ESA SM affords? 
"Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others."
-JFK May 25, 1961

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
While ARM gives the ability for SLS/Orion to do some thing, anything, with minimal payload development costs there is still some science to be gained from asteroid sampling depending on it's type, carbonaceous, silicon. or metallic.
A serious question:
What other science could be done with SLS/Orion without a funded payload and limited life support the ESA SM affords?

Launch an artificial gravity lab, with two components joined by cables.  Test various combinations of diameter and spin rate, and procedures for deploying and rewinding.  Also spin-stabilized laser communications.  This is technology that is directly usable in Mars missions.  The funding comes from not doing the silly asteroid lasso mission.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2014 05:15 pm by ThereIWas3 »

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
While ARM gives the ability for SLS/Orion to do some thing, anything, with minimal payload development costs there is still some science to be gained from asteroid sampling depending on it's type, carbonaceous, silicon. or metallic.

A serious question:
What other science could be done with SLS/Orion without a funded payload and limited life support the ESA SM affords?
I'm not aware of any that could not be done on ISS.

AFAIK, the Obama administration tried to cancel Constellation, was forced to accept SLS/Orion, was not given any increase in the overall NASA budget for landers/payloads/hab modules for actual lunar or Mars landings, and was told to come up with a mission for SLS/Orion. They chose "flexible path" because it was the only one not requiring a lander. Then, when it became apparent they did not have the misison duration needed for a flight to even a NEO, they offered to move the asteroid to lunar orbit.

If an ARM mission were planned for maximum science return the asteroid would simply be returned to the ISS where it could be studied intensively for years, in a shirtsleeve environment, by personnel already on the station. The SLS/Orion eliminates almost all the science and adds billions to the cost.

The real obstacle to Mars flight is not radiation, weightlessness, or our lack of experience with operations in high lunar orbit. It's cost of getting to LEO and the need for much higher energy propulsion beyond LEO. The SEP planned for the ARM can help with the latter, although at some point NEP will also be needed.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2014 07:58 pm by vulture4 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
While ARM gives the ability for SLS/Orion to do some thing, anything, with minimal payload development costs there is still some science to be gained from asteroid sampling depending on it's type, carbonaceous, silicon. or metallic.

A serious question:
What other science could be done with SLS/Orion without a funded payload and limited life support the ESA SM affords?
I'm not aware of any that could not be done on ISS.

AFAIK, the Obama administration tried to cancel Constellation, was forced to accept SLS/Orion, was not given any increase in the overall NASA budget for landers/payloads/hab modules for actual lunar or Mars landings, and was told to come up with a mission for SLS/Orion. They chose "flexible path" because it was the only one not requiring a lander. Then, when it became apparent they did not have the misison duration needed for a flight to even a NEO, they offered to move the asteroid to lunar orbit.

If an ARM mission were planned for maximum science return the asteroid would simply be returned to the ISS where it could be studied intensively for years, in a shirtsleeve environment, by personnel already on the station. The SLS/Orion eliminates almost all the science and adds billions to the cost.

The real obstacle to Mars flight is not radiation, weightlessness, or our lack of experience with operations in high lunar orbit. It's cost of getting to LEO and the need for much higher energy propulsion beyond LEO. The SEP planned for the ARM can help with the latter, although at some point NEP will also be needed.
I would think vulture that it would still be examined in a glove box for safety and  sample contamination....
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline CommercialSpaceFan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 1
Or they may not.  In any case what Elon Musk wants or doesn't want to do has nothing to do with NASA.

The main question for NASA is what can it do within the current budget profile?

Just in recent memory the Constellation program would have required a large budget bump in order to afford to develop and build hardware needed for going to the Moon, but even with that increased budget the Augustine Commission didn't think NASA would get to the Moon before the mid-2030's.

Of course NASA never got that extra money, and has actually seen it's budget cut in a very bipartisan way in Congress.

So NASA is not being funded anywhere close to the amount needed to start a routine launch schedule for the SLS, which is why so many of us continue to point out the futility of building an HLV if there is no money to use it.

And Mars?

If anything the talk about Mars is just justification for spending money to do studies, and those studies have no chance of changing anything.

With shrinking budgets and huge mismatches between political mandates and funding for the mandates, there is a reset coming soon for NASA.  It won't be pretty, but the big question is whether NASA will come out of it leaner and more prepared for the future, or just more bogged down in political intervention...

Fully agree. 

Exploration needs to move beyond a jobs program.  Regardless of the path, the dollars are spent here on Earth providing jobs.  What is wrong with expecting Exploration to also produce actual exploration and move technology forward?

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Quote
I would think vulture that it would still be examined in a glove box for safety and  sample contamination....
I fully agree that contamination would have to be avoided until the analysis portion of the project was completed. However that's still much easier inside a pressurized module than if an EVA is required for each access to the asteroid. Scientific productivity over a year or two could easily be 10 to 100 times what could be achieved in lunar orbit. The second part of such a project, ISRU research to actually utilize asteroidal material, might require protective equipment but would not require isolation. In this case considerable equipment may be needed, and needs may change as more is learned. Again this would be far more productive on ISS.
« Last Edit: 07/12/2014 03:03 pm by vulture4 »

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
There is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission.  ...  There is no ultimate value for the mission; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.

If the plan was to push and return the DSH to L2, one leg of the ARM so to speak, then this demonstrates engineering value...

If crew health issues are resolved, then these ARM missions are simply stepping stones to Mars and beyond and would clearly be of value as long as they fit the overall architecture and steps to certify the hardware for the destinations.  If crew health and mass issues are not resolved, at least part of the technical challenges are being address with a DSH, and not being stuck under the ARM of SLS/Orion.

I'm perfectly willing to accept your blurry idea of the term 'value'. There is no other way that we could converse on this exotic speculation about the distant, virtually completely unsure future.

In general, the health issues of zero gee and radiation and sheer ECLSS capability, among a great many other things, need to be solved before colonizing Mars.  You do realize that the short list of "ifs" that you raise do not "clearly" indicate future value, because the "ifs" are not all on the verge of being turned into "whens".

The ARM, hastily drawn up, is being falsely presented as a "stepping stone", when there is no overall strategy for NASA programs to survive political cycles and to actually strive towards an attempt at martian colonization.
yes, it was an attempt to give SLS/Orion a mission without developing any other hardware.  It seems to be a common practice to take the advantage of a different concept and simply state it as their own! :P

A better 'value' is to demonstrate that the crew and hardware and survive the round trip to mars in the proper environment (full GCR and microg).   As mentioned before, the most optimistic scenario is one trip with a few crew to some location distant enough from the earth or moon to not block GCR--one flight certification.

The reality is that this may have to be done incrementally, so rather than having the crew sit at say L2 for a few months, send them on a ARM mission, test the transfer stage/tug, if its a shorter trip than Mars.    In this case, ARM will become a stepping stone mission with the minimum value of crew health research/incremental duration and demonstration of the transfer stage/tug--engineering value.   

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
We will not demonstrate that people can tolerate radiation by placing them in a space radiation environment. First, it is unethical. Second, it would be pointless since most of the radiation effects have a very long latency and we would have no way of knowing if the crew is going to get cancer in ten years. Third, it is unnecessary since both low and high-Z radiation can be simulated on Earth.

Improved modeling can help, but in reality the predicted exposure for an 18 month Mars mission (roughly 1 sievert) has not changed much in 30 years. In my opinion it is acceptable for one round trip, but standards have become more stringent since Skylab and some authorities don't accept it.

There are two solutions I can see:

1. Constant thrust electric propulsion using the amazingly powerful Hall effect thrusters now available (as proposed for the robotic portion of the ARM mission). This requires a lot of electric power, 50KW or better for the spacecraft. More power=shorter trip. With higher constant thrust you can add shielding and reduce trip time. Solar is a good start, but eventually we will need nuclear.

2. Reduce the need for a human crew; push artificial intelligence and increase the ability of robotic systems, both rovers and observation/analytical data gathering systems, to respond directly to their environment.

I guess I should point out that neither strategy requires SLS.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2014 10:18 pm by vulture4 »

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
There is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission.  ...  There is no ultimate value for the mission [either]; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.

If the plan was to push and return the DSH to L2, one leg of the ARM so to speak, then this demonstrates engineering value...

If crew health issues are resolved, then these ARM missions are simply stepping stones to Mars and beyond and would clearly be of value as long as they fit the overall architecture ...

I'm perfectly willing to accept your blurry idea of the term 'value'. ...

In general, the health issues of zero gee and radiation and sheer ECLSS capability, among a great many other things, need to be solved ... because the "ifs" are not all on the verge of being turned into "whens".

The ARM, hastily drawn up, is being falsely presented as a "stepping stone", when there is no overall strategy ...

yes, it was an attempt to give SLS/Orion a mission without developing any other hardware.

Whoah there, kemosabe. Asteroid bags are at TRL 9?  Table for the moment, that they should make that attempt with a net, as I have sketched out elsewhere.  (Which I would have linked, but for the vagaries of this site's text search failure:  You cannot find a post by using the valid term " net ".)

Asteroid bags are notional.  They exist nowhere but as a sequence of 24 bit color pixel descriptions.  Neither does the SEP spacecraft bus exist.  And while the principles of RCS and Hall thrusters are sound, and even tho this actual hardware exists in other random instantiations, for the heist, this hardware will be clean sheet designs, years before any hardware at all is built.

Unfortunately, you have temporarily fallen sway to the cognitively false arguments made by a bunch of lab coated doctorates with clipboards, who have every reason to support their livelihood without the real need to accomplish the stated mission.

A better 'value' is to demonstrate that the crew and hardware and survive ...

The reality is that this may have to be done incrementally, so rather than having the crew sit at say L2 for a few months, send them on a ARM mission ... In this case, ARM will become a stepping stone mission with the minimum value of crew health research/incremental duration and demonstration of the transfer stage/tug--engineering value.
[/quote]

Which is probably a generally correct approach, I'd say.

As a mere digression, with the heist, the government continues to solidify its position as the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.
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
Reduce the need for a human crew...

Hopefully, you and I agree that this approach would not support HSF at all.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline OpsAnalyst

There is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission.  ...  There is no ultimate value for the mission; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.

If the plan was to push and return the DSH to L2, one leg of the ARM so to speak, then this demonstrates engineering value...

If crew health issues are resolved, then these ARM missions are simply stepping stones to Mars and beyond and would clearly be of value as long as they fit the overall architecture and steps to certify the hardware for the destinations.  If crew health and mass issues are not resolved, at least part of the technical challenges are being address with a DSH, and not being stuck under the ARM of SLS/Orion.

I'm perfectly willing to accept your blurry idea of the term 'value'. There is no other way that we could converse on this exotic speculation about the distant, virtually completely unsure future.

In general, the health issues of zero gee and radiation and sheer ECLSS capability, among a great many other things, need to be solved before colonizing Mars.  You do realize that the short list of "ifs" that you raise do not "clearly" indicate future value, because the "ifs" are not all on the verge of being turned into "whens".

The ARM, hastily drawn up, is being falsely presented as a "stepping stone", when there is no overall strategy for NASA programs to survive political cycles and to actually strive towards an attempt at martian colonization.
yes, it was an attempt to give SLS/Orion a mission without developing any other hardware.  It seems to be a common practice to take the advantage of a different concept and simply state it as their own! :P

No, it wasn't.  And no, they didn't.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Reduce the need for a human crew...

Hopefully, you and I agree that this approach would not support HSF at all.

I agree, but perhaps I should have said AI may reduce the need for a biologically human crew. At some point AI may decide that they are people too.

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
Reduce the need for a human crew...

Hopefully, you and I agree that this approach would not support HSF at all.

I agree, but perhaps I should have said AI may reduce the need for a biologically human crew. At some point AI may decide that they are people too.

Mebbe we should get Chris to addd a AISF section?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
There is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission.  ...  There is no ultimate value for the mission; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.

If the plan was to push and return the DSH to L2, one leg of the ARM so to speak, then this demonstrates engineering value...

If crew health issues are resolved, then these ARM missions are simply stepping stones to Mars and beyond and would clearly be of value as long as they fit the overall architecture and steps to certify the hardware for the destinations.  If crew health and mass issues are not resolved, at least part of the technical challenges are being address with a DSH, and not being stuck under the ARM of SLS/Orion.

I'm perfectly willing to accept your blurry idea of the term 'value'. There is no other way that we could converse on this exotic speculation about the distant, virtually completely unsure future.

In general, the health issues of zero gee and radiation and sheer ECLSS capability, among a great many other things, need to be solved before colonizing Mars.  You do realize that the short list of "ifs" that you raise do not "clearly" indicate future value, because the "ifs" are not all on the verge of being turned into "whens".

The ARM, hastily drawn up, is being falsely presented as a "stepping stone", when there is no overall strategy for NASA programs to survive political cycles and to actually strive towards an attempt at martian colonization.
yes, it was an attempt to give SLS/Orion a mission without developing any other hardware.  It seems to be a common practice to take the advantage of a different concept and simply state it as their own! :P

No, it wasn't.  And no, they didn't.

Could you elaborate, please?

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
Could you elaborate, please?

Someday, I'll learn to keep the personalities out of my commentary.

I said this elsewhere, but it holds true here as well.  You have run into the cognitive limitations of 140 character snark.

If I might get literary, some animals in the barnyard are freer than others.  Anyhow, let me attempt to elaborate for you, at least from this part of the barnyard:

Quote from: JF
The ARM, hastily drawn up, is being falsely presented as a "stepping stone", when there is no overall strategy for NASA programs to survive political cycles and to actually strive towards an attempt at martian colonization.

Yes, it was an attempt to give SLS/Orion a mission without developing any other hardware.  It seems to be a common practice to take the advantage of a different concept and simply state it as their own!

You are incorrect in that the "attmpt" did not actually propose proceeding with Orion/SLS "without developing any other hardware".  The proper analogy is much closer to "Ready, Fire, Aim", where Orion/SLS was "assumed", and a bullseye was drawn around ARM, and the Proponents (present company excluded, of course) held out the false meme that "lo, we have hit our target".

The glaring absense of anything to put on top of SLS other than ballast caught the attention of policymakers, who lept at the opportunity to prove their powerpoint skills.  Interestingly, Congress didn't "micromismanage" this one.  NASA did.  The mission was, in mine and many, many others' view, made up from whole cloth, and only serves as an excuse, not a rationale, for developing new versions of hardware for the mere technical joy of developing fancy hardware.  Period.

There is no "overall stragtegy" being systematically developed with the aim towards enabling a permanent human presence BLEO.

As to your comment about the "common practice", I'm not quite sure what you mean.  A bit o' elaboration, mebbe?
« Last Edit: 07/18/2014 01:17 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Quote
As to your comment about the "common practice", I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Not to speak for MuOmega but I've heard there are three stages to an idea at NASA, 1) it will never work, 2) we don't need it, and 3) it was our idea all along. In the case of ARM there was a previous study of retrieving a small asteroid and bringing it directly to the ISS without any mention of SLS or Orion.
« Last Edit: 07/18/2014 03:57 pm by vulture4 »

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
Hey Vulture:  I think your quotes are a bit off. 

Did you mean to say, "Not to speak for JF MuOmega, but I've heard there are three stages to an idea at NASA..." ?  'Cause it was he who observed:

"It seems to be a common practice to take the advantage of a different concept and simply state it as their own!"
« Last Edit: 07/18/2014 01:42 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Hey Vulture:  I think your quotes are a bit off. 

Did you mean to say, "Not to speak for JF MuOmega, but I've heard there are three stages to an idea at NASA..." ?  'Cause it was he who observed:

"It seems to be a common practice to take the advantage of a different concept and simply state it as their own!"

Sorry, previous post corrected. It was kind of stupid but I misread the nested quotes. Anyway, when I read the original asteroid retrieval proposal I was surprised at how much detail had been worked out regarding trajectories and flight paths, and the lack of any publicity on it. And then the ARMCM proposal appears with the SLS/Orion, and does not even mention the prior work or suggest that there might be an alternative to sending people all the way out to high lunar orbit to study an asteroid brought all the way back to Earth. The ISS alternative saves over a billion dollars and gets between 10 and 100 times the data. What's not to like? Oh- I forgot, no need for SLS/Orion.
« Last Edit: 07/18/2014 04:03 pm by vulture4 »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Hey Vulture:  I think your quotes are a bit off. 

Did you mean to say, "Not to speak for JF MuOmega, but I've heard there are three stages to an idea at NASA..." ?  'Cause it was he who observed:

"It seems to be a common practice to take the advantage of a different concept and simply state it as their own!"

Sorry, previous post corrected. It was kind of stupid but I misread the nested quotes. Anyway, when I read the original asteroid retrieval proposal I was surprised at how much detail had been worked out regarding trajectories and flight paths, and the lack of any publicity on it. And then the ARMCM proposal appears with the SLS/Orion, and does not even mention the prior work or suggest that there might be an alternative to sending people all the way out to high lunar orbit to study an asteroid brought all the way back to Earth. The ISS alternative saves over a billion dollars and gets between 10 and 100 times the data. What's not to like? Oh- I forgot, no need for SLS/Orion.

How about bringing it all the way back to Washington DC and then it can be explored in between Exploration Road-mapping sessions...  does away with all that nastiness of human space flight, too.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

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
Quote from: JF
The ARM, hastily drawn up, is being falsely presented as a "stepping stone", when there is no overall strategy for NASA programs to survive political cycles and to actually strive towards an attempt at martian colonization.

Yes, it was an attempt to give SLS/Orion a mission without developing any other hardware.  It seems to be a common practice to take the advantage of a different concept and simply state it as their own!

Now, as to the "common practice" idea. 

"They" is certainly have a "Not Invented Here" attitude.  There is also a cultural thing about novelty.  The ARM mission was sold as "new", by any fair reading of the literature.  Combine that with the shallow Presidential directive against BTDT, and you might want to consider your personal definition of what that "common practice" is.

For me, it's building new hardware to demonstrate new capabilities, with novel destinations chosen out of belt full of novel destinations, each with its own delta-v and tumbling criteria, to investigate at one end only, and all without fitting into a coherent strategy, as I've mentioned, of enabling a permanent human presence BLEO.

Again and BTW: If you're going to lasso an asteroid, use a net, particularly if you're claiming the insatiable obsession with crawling around it, pecking away at it with manually operated impact devices.  Put it in a bag, and you only have access to one end.  But "they" didn't invent the lasso, they "invented" the bag.

The last paragraph just a momentary digression into the complete lack of pragmatics surrounding the bag mission.
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
How about bringing it all the way back to Washington DC...

What teminal velocity did you have in mind?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
How about bringing it all the way back to Washington DC...

What teminal velocity did you have in mind?

I was kinda going for reductio ad absurdum, not reductio to rubble.  But...
Nah, I won't go there.
« Last Edit: 07/18/2014 08:36 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

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
I was kinda going for reductio ad absurdum, not reductio to rubble ad caementa

Fixed that for ya.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
No, it wasn't.  And no, they didn't.
In the context of Augustine, the right plan for the right budget.  The time of reference is important here, the hardware, the location of the rendezvous, and does it fit within an overall plan.  IOW: Does the mission prepare NASA HSF for Mars?  The answer then depends on whether SLS/Orion is proper architecture and if Orion is being sent to Mars per Mars DRM 5.  If this is not the goal, then a return to earth may be more value.   
Quote from: Squyers
At all future milestones on the road to Mars, direct the Agency to focus narrowly on activities that clearly serve the goal of landing humans on Mars, operating there, and returning them safely to Earth
   
Anyway, when I read the original asteroid retrieval proposal I was surprised at how much detail had been worked out regarding trajectories and flight paths, and the lack of any publicity on it. And then the ARMCM proposal appears with the SLS/Orion, and does not even mention the prior work or suggest that there might be an alternative to sending people all the way out to high lunar orbit to study an asteroid brought all the way back to Earth. The ISS alternative saves over a billion dollars and gets between 10 and 100 times the data.
If one thinks in terms of one Mission, then this may be the cheaper solution, but if the goal is to incrementally demonstrate longer duration crew stays for the trip to Mars, then asteroid visits may be of high value. Staging for Mars at L2 is significantly less energy than LEO and hence less IMLEO.  The trades must be conducted properly.  No one is proposing sending crew without adequate radiation protection, so this mass penalty must be included.
---
Here is a brief history of asteroid visits to partially support "Yes it was".   An integrated plan that includes asteroid visits would be exciting and likely provide value too as long as its a stepping stone to Mars.  YMMV.

1969:  The Long and Storied Path to Human Asteroid ExplorationBy 1969, according to a “Five Year Plan” laid out by the Office of Manned Space Flight, NASA was already looking at plans to send crewed missions to asteroids. However, at the time, the then-latest technology was insufficient to pursue this goal.  NASA administrator Robert A. Frosch mentioned this in testimony to Congress on July 29, 1980, when he explained that “a number of evolutionary stages of technology development would be required” for such missions, including “asteroid retrieval to Earth.

2007:  LM studied Asteroid Exploration beginning in 2007 with Kissing Orions since it did not make sense to design a new human spacecraft just for asteroid missions.  One Orion used to launch and return astronauts,  a second Orion for additional deep-space propulsion, living space, food water, launched on Ares V and Ares I, no EP, with 6 months being the upper feasibility limit:  The stated goal:  Mars precursor: Asteroids are shorter, simpler practice for Mars missions.  Many open questions are still to be resolved regarding how to perform EVAs near asteroids  - but why send a capsule to an Asteroid,  Mars or to Phobos or Deimos when it compromises its earth departure return function?  Where is the asteroid retrieval phase to Earth or lunar orbit?

2012:  The Keck's Institute for Space Study on Asteroid Retrieval in 2012 stated that EELV would launch a 40kW EP system with the  goal of retrieving a large NEA to a safe stable cislunar orbit.  “Placing a 500-t asteroid in high lunar orbit would provide a unique, meaningful, and affordable destination for astronaut crews in the next decade.” Capsule or DSH?

This mission will offer an attractive near-term destination for human missions that can be leveraged to develop systems and operational experience for eventual human operations in the vicinity of a NEA in deep space or the Martian moons, Phobos and Deimos. It will also allow repeated crew visits to a NEA for extended periods of time before embarking on longer duration missions to more distant NEAs.  Placing a 500-t asteroid there would provide a unique, meaningful, and easy-to-reach destination for exploration by astronaut crews in the next decade.

2014:  What is Asteroid Redirect Mission?  “The ARM is part of NASA’s plan to advance the new technologies and spacecraft needed for humans to pioneer Mars in the 2030s.”    Scroll down to the link “How Will NASA's Asteroid Redirect Mission Help Humans Reach Mars?”--- ” The deep space environment around the moon is different than low-Earth orbit, but very similar to what an Orion spacecraft would experience on the trip to and from Mars.”

2014:  Mission to Mars in Six Easy Steps:  EP SLS and Orion   --   "Proving the Pieces – Deimos and/or Phobos precursor missions”  Notes:   No ARM mission;   Not sending Orion to Mars;  Spirals EP to L2 and EP to Mars; takes 256 + 204 days for crew to travel to and from Mars.

2014:   ”BAA Asteroid Redirect Mission--NASA is developing concepts to capture a NEA or remove a boulder from the surface, and redirect the asteroid mass into a stable orbit around the moon”  The title is Asteroid Redirect Mission, not Retrieval.    “Astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft launched on the Space Launch System would rendezvous with the asteroid mass in lunar orbit, and collect samples for return to Earth”

The HLV architecture sent Orion to Mars similar to the Apollo mission.  Unfortunately, Orion can only return from a lunar orbit and not an Asteroid or Mars orbit due to an inadequate heat shield.  Increasing the 20+ day capacity and 2-4 g/cm2 shielding (it takes 20g/cm2 for 300 days and its ~ 1mT per g/cm2) is a tough compromise for its primary earth departure/return function and excludes reuse.    The next logical conclusion is that the capsule should have been either parked in LEO or L2 powered down and leave the deep space travel to the DSH voyager with plans for reuse.  The other Augustine issue is the budget of 3.2B/year and the lack of IP and 'commercial' participants.    The HLV only architecture incorporated EP but from LEO to L2 to exclude depots, and the EP to Mars transfer takes way too long for crew--it needs more power or a chemical kick start.  Should EP be launched on SLS or EELV per the Keck study?

Edit: Nov 2014 Nature: Thousands of shipping-container-sized and larger asteroids pass almost as close as the Moon each year.  We need to find them far enough in advance, and abundant opportunities for crewed missions will open up  Asteroids, Mars, and the Moon.
This gateway for human space exploration requires three things: a thorough asteroid survey to find thousands of nearby bodies suitable for astronauts to visit; extending flight duration and distance capability to ever-increasing ranges out to Mars; and developing better robotic vehicles and tools to enable astronauts to explore an asteroid regardless of its size, shape or spin. The asteroid survey would also provide a prudent and overdue assessment of future impact hazards.

Edit:  Nov 10, 2014 Sci America A retrieval mission gets you one asteroid, but a survey gets you thousands that you could potentially visit.  ARM doesn't advance anything and the hardware is short of delta-V and delta-P.
« Last Edit: 11/10/2014 06:47 pm by muomega0 »

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
"It seems to be a common practice to take the advantageS of a different concept and simply state itthem as their own!"
Quote
As to your comment about the "common practice", I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Not to speak for MuOmega but I've heard there are three stages to an idea at NASA, 1) it will never work, 2) we don't need it, and 3) it was our idea all along. In the case of ARM there was a previous study of retrieving a small asteroid and bringing it directly to the ISS without any mention of SLS or Orion.
WRT Concept B, the common practice is to simply state the advantages of A for B.
Concept A B          Concept BA
cheaper               more expensive
better                  less performance
faster                  slower
You provide a few examples of how this is done with 1, 2 and 3, with 2 its the 'capability driven approach' or single mission focus rather than the most number of missions over N decades for the same total budget.  For example, require 120mT for a 6-day lunar sortie in less than 3 launches.  Then with this capability, drive all missions forward because 1) the others will never work and 2) we don't need it and 4) we can explor' sooner.

You pointed out a good example of the conflict with the single mission focus with ARM where a return to earth may be of more value than a visit in deep space.  However if the asteroid was to be used for propellant, not so clear.

Will the same logic prevail when the warp drive folks cannot get resources because the technology is not Falcon or 'commercial' derived. Inconceivable?

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Quote
the lack of IP and 'commercial' participants.
Possibly because they are more than a bit dubious about the practicality of going to Mars with SLS/Orion?
You pointed out a good example of the conflict with the single mission focus with ARM where a return to earth may be of more value than a visit in deep space.  However if the asteroid was to be used for propellant, not so clear.
Return to ISS, not Earth. On ISS it could be used for propellant, e.g. to maintain ISS altitude.

Quote
Will the same logic prevail when the warp drive folks cannot get resources because the technology is not Falcon or 'commercial' derived. Inconceivable?
Not a problem. Just make the decisionmakers think warp drive was their idea.
« Last Edit: 07/19/2014 05:23 pm by vulture4 »

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
I'd like to just wait and see.

We need to see exactly how bipartisan the SLS is.

After the election a new administrator will be selected and a new president might want to shake things up.

Once SLS is far enough along the requirements need to be relaxed or it's never going to have a mission because the missions will just be to meet the requirements which costs time and money.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
It depends on whether the new president is willing to take on Congress. However Wolf is retiring. On the Senate side the supporters will still be there. I cannot see any new president putting political capital into preserving SLS, but  unless it's someone with real understanding of the situation it's hard to see why they would put political capital into cancelling it.

Offline jimhillhouse

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 3
I'd like to just wait and see.

We need to see exactly how bipartisan the SLS is.

After the election a new administrator will be selected and a new president might want to shake things up.

Once SLS is far enough along the requirements need to be relaxed or it's never going to have a mission because the missions will just be to meet the requirements which costs time and money.

I don't think there's much debate about the support of the current national human space flight program. As a niche program, like all niche programs, it's led by a few, fortunately senior, members of Congress. And don't forget the history of that support, the live-televised full House debate on September 29, 2010 that saw the President's HSF proposal voted down by 324 House members, or just over 74%, in favor of the 2010 NASA Auth. Act, our current program of record.

Congress created the SLS and Orion programs in direct opposition to the Obama Administration, subpoenaed and nearly indicted NASA, and in particular the then-Deputy Administrator, over efforts to prevent the SLS program from starting, and has subsequently and consistently made clear in both NASA's appropriated budgets and in the accompanying budget statements strong bipartisan support for both the SLS and Orion programs. Since 2010, Congress has annually appropriated $1B - $1.2B for Orion and $1.4B-$1.6B for SLS, not including infrastructure upgrades. For FY15, the SLS and Orion numbers will be higher. Naturally, the Obama Administration, especially OMB's Branch Chief for Science and Space Paul Shawcross, has worked tirelessly to decrease funding for both Orion and SLS, fortunately to no avail.

Offline jimhillhouse

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 3
I cannot see any new president putting political capital into preserving SLS, but  unless it's someone with real understanding of the situation it's hard to see why they would put political capital into cancelling it.

Any incoming president need only look at the fall-out of what was the policy and political debacle otherwise called the Great Space Debate of 2010, which ended-up costing the White House what little leadership it held in space while essentially maintaining most of the very programs the Administration wanted canceled. A new president in 2017 is going to face a Congress that has been effectively running space policy for the last 7 years, one unlikely to surrender that role. More than likely, he or she will conclude that, if Congress wants its rocket that is about to have its first test-flight, then fine.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
I cannot see any new president putting political capital into preserving SLS, but  unless it's someone with real understanding of the situation it's hard to see why they would put political capital into cancelling it.
...which ended-up costing the White House what little leadership it held in space while essentially maintaining most of the very programs the Administration wanted canceled.

Oh?  Congress agreed to save the ISS, which our ISS partners were very glad to see, since the plan was to dump the ISS in 2015 and stop our ability to figure out how to live and work in space.  NASA didn't want to dump the ISS either, since it's the only science platform they have for solving the problems holding us back from leaving LEO.

Congress also agreed to fund Commercial Crew, which was a priority for the Obama administration.  And they agreed to cancel the Constellation program.  Seems like Congress agreed with the Administration a lot.

Quote
A new president in 2017 is going to face a Congress that has been effectively running space policy for the last 7 years, one unlikely to surrender that role. More than likely, he or she will conclude that, if Congress wants its rocket that is about to have its first test-flight, then fine.

Effectively running?  The SLS is like a specialized railroad engine that is being built without any rails to run on.  And let's remember what the Augustine Commission said in their conclusion:

"NASA is the most accomplished space organization in the world. Its human spaceflight activities are nonetheless at a tipping point, primarily due to a mismatch of goals and resources. Either additional funds need to be made avail- able or a far more modest program involving little or no exploration needs to be adopted."

Congress hasn't addressed the mismatch of goals and resources, so the SLS, which has no funded missions, is on track to be cancelled just like Constellation was.

And the MPCV?  As currently designed, it can barely support a lunar mission, yet no lunar missions are funded.  So that's candidate #2 for cancellation.

Yep, Congress is sure doing a great job...   ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline jimhillhouse

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 3
So what did the Admin. got for all its troubles in 2010? ISS? That was already a done deal thanks to the 2008 NASA Auth. act preventing NASA from undertaking any efforts to deorbited ISS. End of Orion? No. End of Ares? Well, there's SLS, so no. End of NASA as the driver of HSF? No.  Obama's folks did get commercial crew.

Let's not forget that a mere 2 months after his space policy announcement to cancel Orion President Obama had to travel down to KSC on April 15, 2010 to try to quell the rising HSF storm and publicly reverse course on Orion. Even that effort did more harm than good. But there was an excellent photo op with Elon.

Then there was the humiliating vote on Sept. 29, 2010 when the Dem. controlled House, in a live broadcast carried by every major network (gosh, even MSNBC), voted by over 70% (I think it was 324 against, or 74%) to reject their President's proposed space policy and adopt the Senate's, really Kay Bailey's, version of the 2010 NASA Auth. Act. And that was good news because the Dem. House version would have actually rolled-back all of the Obama proposed space changes while beginning an investigation into how this whole mess was developed.

The icing on the cake was the whole Sec. 309 disaster. In a first for the space agency, NASA did get subpoenaed by the Dem. run full Commerce Committee and was told a contempt of Congress motion was next.

Does anyone really believe that any, never mind all, of this was what Obama's space folks had in mind as an outcome of their efforts? Maybe you're different, but for most people getting just 1:3 of what you wanted while at the same time facing legal jeopardy, never mind having your political posterior publicly handed to you, isn't exactly knocking it out of the policy and political park.

Today, Congress, not the president, sets space policy. Doubt it? I submit for your closer review NASA's last 4 budgets, never mind the FY15 budgets that have made it out of committee. Compare SLS, Orion, and commercial crew appropriated vs proposed funding. I guess if you think a 1:3 outcome is a win then that budget comparison isn't so eye-pippingly bad for the Admin., but in reality it is. The President's NASA budget is so DOA that even Shelby barely bothers to comment on it. And why should he or anyone else when what the WH wants or doesn't want for NASA doesn't matter except as a political bat to beat-up Charlie with.

Congressional staffers will admit today that Congress was asleep at the switch in the run-up to the 2010 Space Debate. They will also tell you that those days are gone. So any incoming president is going to face a Congress that has its own space policy and is funding a program to go along with it. Mess with that and see what happens.

And so, yes Ron, I think the next president is going to have a more-or-less hands-off approach to space and pretty much let Congress do what it wants.

But you believe what you like. And going forward, let's just agree to disagree.

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
Congress created the SLS and Orion programs in direct opposition to the Obama Administration, subpoenaed and nearly indicted NASA, and in particular the then-Deputy Administrator, over efforts to prevent the SLS program from starting, and has subsequently and consistently made clear in both NASA's appropriated budgets and in the accompanying budget statements strong bipartisan support for both the SLS and Orion programs. Since 2010, Congress has annually appropriated $1B - $1.2B for Orion and $1.4B-$1.6B for SLS, not including infrastructure upgrades. For FY15, the SLS and Orion numbers will be higher. Naturally, the Obama Administration, especially OMB's Branch Chief for Science and Space Paul Shawcross, has worked tirelessly to decrease funding for both Orion and SLS, fortunately to no avail.

Two points to Gryffindor for an excellent summary.  It makes no sense as to WHY the administration fought so.  The President gives every impression of taking the advice of a stunningly incompetent synchophantic team.  See my tag line for more information.

Quote from: Augustine
"NASA is the most accomplished space organization in the world. Its human spaceflight activities are nonetheless at a tipping point, primarily due to a mismatch of goals and resources. Either additional funds need to be made avail- able or a far more modest program involving little or no exploration needs to be adopted."

The "mismatch of goals and resources" is directly the result of deliberate mis-prioritization, which is a totally understandable consequence of the factional fiefdom system, and its decades old culture of gamed "optimism".

At least, and at last, they are building a launch vehicle, and it is up to NASA to do this on time and on schedule.  Then it will be up to congress to determine if there will ever be anything launched other than ballast.

I agree with you that our next president will keep her hands off of the issue of HSF policy.  As she would say, "What does it matter?"
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
At least, and at last, they are building a launch vehicle, and it is up to NASA to do this on time and on schedule.  Then it will be up to congress to determine if there will ever be anything launched other than ballast.

I agree with you that our next president will keep her hands off of the issue of HSF policy.  As she would say, "What does it matter?"

It really doesn't matter what is going on with the SLS and MPCV, since their future is tied to the programs, payloads and missions that have to be funded in order to use them.

If the next President takes a "hands off" approach to them, then it will have to be up to a coalition in Congress to push a space initiative that is big enough to utilize the SLS and MPCV - and that means raising NASA's budget for a sustained period of time.  Who would that be?

Since no one has yet to step forward to propose any missions except for the ARM, and that was roundly panned, the future looks bleak for the SLS and MPCV - unless you're someone that likes to look at real hardware at aerospace museums...   ;)
« Last Edit: 09/08/2014 02:41 pm by Coastal Ron »
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078

Quote from: Augustine
"NASA is the most accomplished space organization in the world. Its human spaceflight activities are nonetheless at a tipping point, primarily due to a mismatch of goals and resources. Either additional funds need to be made avail- able or a far more modest program involving little or no exploration needs to be adopted."

The "mismatch of goals and resources" is directly the result of deliberate mis-prioritization, which is a totally understandable consequence of the factional fiefdom system, and its decades old culture of gamed "optimism".

At least, and at last, they are building a launch vehicle, and it is up to NASA to do this on time and on schedule.  Then it will be up to congress to determine if there will ever be anything launched other than ballast.

I agree with you that our next president will keep her hands off of the issue of HSF policy.  As she would say, "What does it matter?"

Then, it will be time to do an honest comparison of what NASA has produced with its political arms tied behind its back and what the USA (private sector lead, but publicly competed/funded) using can produce without such constraints.  The decision will be that NASA, in its current form/function, is finished as a builder of launch vehicles. 

Time to move on...

Or restore to NASA/the Nation the authority to set long-term spaceflight goals and get them funded as planned (somehow, this stirs visions of unicorn flame trench dancing).
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

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
At least, and at last, they are building a launch vehicle, and it is up to NASA to do this on time and on schedule.  Then it will be up to congress to determine if there will ever be anything launched other than ballast.

Then, it will be time to do an honest comparison of what NASA has produced with its political arms tied behind its back and what the USA (private sector lead, but publicly competed/funded) using can produce without such constraints.  The decision will be that NASA, in its current form/function, is finished as a builder of launch vehicles.

First, as a friendly warning, you open yourself to shallow criticism by saying that Nasa is "builder of launch vehicles".  Joe Fonebone, a contractor who lives down the street, just "built" a house.  Obviously, he didn't pour every bag of concrete, nail every stud, and paint every wall; his subcontractors did.  Still Joe can legitimately claim to have built the house, and NASA can legitimately claim to have built SLS, whenever that shuold happen.

I'm just pointing this out in an effort to forestall the expected and typically useless pander about how NASA isn't building SLS.

I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "political arms tied behind its back". 

Back in Griffin's day, the President made one speech and then Griffin worked the congressional political scene to his grandiose and ultimately failed launch system.  In Bolden's day, the President made one speech, and then appears to have ordered the Administrator to fight Congress to the point of subpoenas and contempt.  Is this kinda sorta what you're driving at?

Quote from: AncientU
Or restore to NASA/the Nation the authority to set long-term spaceflight goals and get them funded as planned...

If I mold your words to suit my purposes, then I generally agree with this.  By "molding your words", I mean pretty much changing your statement completely:

The President should work with congressional leadership on creating a plan to establish a permanent human outpost on Mars, by using Luna and L1 as a testing ground for the necessary equipment and techniques needed.  Obvious equipment components would include in space and surface habs, depot architecture, landers, a LEO to L1 tug and finally, an MTV.  Some of the obvious necessary techniques would include propellant transfer, and the demonstration of lunar ISRU.

As to determining the budget for this effort, in the early years, it should be a fixed amount only, say $5B annually, use it or save it.  The faith based pretense that exhaustive study accurately predicts costs and always results in the best design should be abandoned, and that talent should be directed towards the proper scheduling of tasks and accomplishment which would further the goal of getting to Mars.

In other words, do things in the proper order.

As to the political gamesmanship regarding the political distribution of the workforce, I point out that the entire workforce infrastructure is there already.  Somehow, there would have to be implemented a non-partisan oversight committee to divide the workload to the various contractors on a merit based system which has a cost component.

In other words, cut the fat, get the job done.

Like ya say, time to move on...
« Last Edit: 09/09/2014 01:43 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Quote
The President should work with congressional leadership on creating a plan to establish a permanent human outpost on Mars, by using Luna and L1 as a testing ground for the necessary equipment and techniques needed.
I'm curious who in the congressional leadership has shown support for this, particularly at the $5B/yr level.

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
Quote
The President should work with congressional leadership on creating a plan to establish a permanent human outpost on Mars, by using Luna and L1 as a testing ground for the necessary equipment and techniques needed.

I'm curious who in the congressional leadership has shown support for this, particularly at the $5B/yr level.

Wish I knew.  And perhaps the number should "only" be $3B/year.  I'm riffing off of Augustine and the idea that SLS costs, over time, will be reduced.

There are two aspects of my proposal which are new.  Fixed annual budget, with a use it or save it approach.  At the end of the fiscal year, there wouldn't be this hypocritical waste of taxpayer dollars that plagues every (not just some) government agency.

Secondly, I expect a savings, possibly the $3B figure, from the significant amount of staff time spent in endless inconclusive study and debate over definitions, in favor of the more empirical, pragmatic approach used in the Apollo program.

Keep in mind that I suggest a broad brush approach, and a more comprehensive policy would have to be written.  In the face of expected resistance from the beneficiaries of the status quo, both in industry and congress, this workable plan I've concocted has a slim chance of success, even though, properly implemented the financial amounts would not fall.  With demonstrated success, and effective communication to the voters, successive NASA budgets would likely increase, and private efforts would secure more investment dollars.

What's not to like?

Oh.  Status quo and non-accomplishment.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Fixed annual budget, with a use it or save it approach.
A good idea, but this would require a major change in laws. There are a few exceptions but generally federal regulations prohibit saving money past the end of a funding period. The rationale is that if you didn't spend it you didn't need it and shouldn't have asked for it.

Quote
With demonstrated success, and effective communication to the voters, successive NASA budgets would likely increase, and private efforts would secure more investment dollars.
This would also be nice, but I'm not sure the record supports your hypothesis. Even after the Moon landing NASA's budget was slashed, and other R&D agencies like NIH which are quite productive are losing ground even now.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2014 04:34 am by vulture4 »

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
Fixed annual budget, with a use it or save it approach.

1) A good idea, but this would require a major change in laws. There are a few exceptions but generally federal regulations prohibit saving money past the end of a funding period. The rationale is that if you didn't spend it you didn't need it and shouldn't have asked for it.

Quote
With demonstrated success, and effective communication to the voters, successive NASA budgets would likely increase, and private efforts would secure more investment dollars.

2) This would also be nice, but I'm not sure the record supports your hypothesis. Even after the Moon landing NASA's budget was slashed, and other R&D agencies like NIH which are quite productive are losing ground even now.

1) Quite aware of the law and the fiscal  "traditions" there.  The rationale is blatantly false as any conversation around the water cooler will reveal.  Still, it persists.

You know how science does not yet have an explanation for where inertia comes from?  Ernst Mach offered an interpretation that inertia is more or less an embodiement of force at a distance.  It's not a widely held view, and I bet you're wondering where I'm going with this.

The "status quo" is very much like inertia, obviously pertaining to human affairs, not so much interstellar bodies.  The political status quo obviously benefits certain parties who actively work to sustain the status quo.  But it is also habitual; this is the way "it's always been done"; it's a hard habit for government to break.

But it is being broken in some ways, with the "rainy day" funds that certain states set up to take care of tax income fluctuations.  Consider leadership* for a moment.  NASA has been a leader in workplace diversity for years.  With a carefully guided cultural change, NASA could demonstrate leadership in fiscal policy.  Yeah, it would be a different approach to the problem of the status quo.

Backing up to habit and inertia. C.S Peirce suggests that the "constants" of the universe resemble habits more than constants and that they do change over time.  Just an OT aside regarding a different approach to the problem of inertia.

2) NASA's budget was slashed at that time because decision makers preferred elective war on false premises.  In my mind, this has been going on since Korea.  Sixty years later, this status quo is quite the habit waiting to be broken.

Consider the hypothetical past as if Griffin had heeded Sutton 7th, p. 350, regarding TO.  It is arguably more than likely, with the Saturn V generation at the top of their game, that the BFR would have been successfully launched, and we'd be ten years closer to having a lunar base supporting an effort to get to Mars permanently.  That $11B would have been used, not disposed of.

Obviously, the relationship between accomplishment and funding is a complex one, and different agencies of the government necessarily would have different outcomes.  Still, NIH is a good current example, with the Ebola virus calling for a cure.  Too bad NIH doesn't have a rainy day fund.

The habitual status quo of there being little relationship between agency accomplishment and annual funding also seems to have habitual roots in the long standing proctice of our government to fail to call things by their true name.

But I can only fix one agency at a time.

*Random avatar: 'Define leadership.'  Me: 'Shut up.'
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 142

1) Quite aware of the law and the fiscal  "traditions" there.  The rationale is blatantly false as any conversation around the water cooler will reveal.  Still, it persists.

You know how science does not yet have an explanation for where inertia comes from?  Ernst Mach offered an interpretation that inertia is more or less an embodiement of force at a distance.  It's not a widely held view, and I bet you're wondering where I'm going with this.

The "status quo" is very much like inertia, obviously pertaining to human affairs, not so much interstellar bodies.  The political status quo obviously benefits certain parties who actively work to sustain the status quo.  But it is also habitual; this is the way "it's always been done"; it's a hard habit for government to break.

But it is being broken in some ways, with the "rainy day" funds that certain states set up to take care of tax income fluctuations.  Consider leadership* for a moment.  NASA has been a leader in workplace diversity for years.  With a carefully guided cultural change, NASA could demonstrate leadership in fiscal policy.  Yeah, it would be a different approach to the problem of the status quo.

Backing up to habit and inertia. C.S Peirce suggests that the "constants" of the universe resemble habits more than constants and that they do change over time.  Just an OT aside regarding a different approach to the problem of inertia.

You can't compare state and federal budgeting.  States are more or less fully in control of their budgeting, and the rainy day fund happens at the top-line level.  It's legal specifically because the state made it legal.

You can't do that for a federal agency budget without an explicit change in federal law.  With the federal government running a deficit pretty much every year, and with multiple agencies funded at less-than-ideal levels, OMB and congressional appropriators look at unspent funds the way vultures look at roadkill.  If this use-or-save approach will ever come into fruition, it will have to happen for the entire federal government.  If that were to ever happen, you can guarantee there will be a political revolt demanding tax cuts and refunds.  Unless the collective personality of the American electorate changes drastically, it will never happen.

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
"You can't do that for a federal agency budget without an explicit change in federal law."

Is it completely beyond the pale to think that I'm calling for a change in federal law?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 142
It would be an incredibly disruptive change that would affect every single federal agency and office and would throw a huge wrench in the entire appropriations process.  I just do not see such a change happening in this congress or any other for the foreseeable future. 

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
Not that I see it happening either, but I note that "disruptive change" is good except when it's bad, according to the whims of one poster or another.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Not that I see it happening either, but I note that "disruptive change" is good except when it's bad, according to the whims of one poster or another.

I'd be glad to see it, but don't hold your breath. For people who haven't been in a government project, the reality might seem the stuff of fantasy. I've been at program reviews in which managers constantly faced an inquisition regarding "burn  rate", and that doesn't refer to consumption of rocket fuel. Every dollar has to be accounted for. If someone gets sick or dies and can no longer be paid, managers must act quickly to find a new way to keep spending at the proper rate, and woe betide the manager who could not explain any discrepancies! Some money must be spent this year, other money can be kept till next year, but no longer. "Contingency plans" must be drawn up to get rid of any unexpected expiring dollars. There is nothing worse than "leaving money on the table" when the fateful hour of midnight arrives. The money goes all the way back to the treasury and everyone in the chain of appropriation will look bad. That might explain the popularity of SLS/Orion; it effortlessly consumes cash that might otherwise be hard to dispose of.

Oh, and on the side we need to actually find funds, keep our essential personnel from getting laid off, and maybe, if we are lucky, occasionally do something useful. If we do, then we have to spend twice as much time generating reports that management can use to get credit for it from higher management. Sometimes I wonder if we are living in the world of "Alice in Wonderland".
« Last Edit: 09/18/2014 02:00 am by vulture4 »

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
Not that I see it happening either, but I note that "disruptive change" is good except when it's bad, according to the whims of one poster or another.

I'd be glad to see it, but don't hold your breath.

Using Mark Twain's three categories; lies, damn likes, and statistics, the current government operation model is not even a statistic.  It's a damn lie.

Any honest government employee will agree with me, under promise of anonymity.  NASA is the one government agency where the disruptive change for good, use it or save it, could be implemented, at least incrementally.

And where's you get the idea that I was holding my breath?  I'm actually banging my head against the wall!  I couldn't find the right emoticon.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
I'm actually banging my head against the wall!  I couldn't find the right emoticon.



Tags:
 

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