Author Topic: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.  (Read 37799 times)

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #40 on: 07/24/2010 09:01 pm »
Quote from: Jim Gagnon
I would add that Obama's position becomes easier to understand if you enumerate Obama's unwritten priorities for NASA:

- serve as an integral portion of the nation's laboratory and research infrastructure
- contribute to long term technology developments as that enhances US competitive stance
- contribute to mid term technology development for military purposes
- help contribute to the economic power of the United States
- motivate the young to strive to excel in education and overall achievement
- serve as an outreach tool to the nations of Earth
- monitor all interesting bodies and phenomena in the universe, starting with the most important planet: Earth

Um Mr. Gagnon, you left out the most important one: that NASA reach out to the Muslim world in order to make them feel better about themselves because of the Islamic world's contributions to astronomy 500 years ago....
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #41 on: 07/24/2010 09:45 pm »
It would appear that my self-defined adversary disputes VSE non deliberation.

Since said adversary, who gets things he should research wrong (vast - but we'll start with voting for Obama - never did, as many know here given my year long loud criticisms of him, but weasels react when they bite  w/o thinking so no surprise). Perhaps my adversary might be a little more effective by being deliberate then knee jerk.

VSE has been considered by many ... but consideration is not deliberation. In this case, vSE has been considered most through political lenses as to benefiting political groups most assuredly - boy and howdy.

To be deliberate here, one cleans the slate first, *no agenda*, and asks a  group of scientists, engineers, astros, advocates, etc  to sit down and chart a "beyond ISS" path/timeline/why. Then you circulate results and build a consensus of support for path/timeline/why. You have a group of aerospace engineers do competing 'straw man' proposals against this path/timeline/why.

Executive branch kicks this around through usual channels/agencies for feasibility, then finds a few who actually do this for a living as actual  engineers and bounces things off them, getting a read on how things will roll out. Uses that feedback to "keep real" the next phase of "straw  man" proposals done with staffers/consultants/HQ. Gets the over gist of what you can/can't do  and why.

Announces as leadership what to do with a specific, achievable goal with a time/date ("I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."). With a reason for doing it ("No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space, and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish").

And then stays engaged in the process in deliberately bringing this about.

BTW, this wasn't just my views of it - but what Professor C.H. Townes told me *personally* did happen. I know - who cares about those useless Nobel prize winners. Reminds me, I'll video him next time he comes by - he's 93 I think ... and still very lucid.

add:

When he was at SETI, he mentioned some of this both in his talk:

... but more in comments afterward (not recorded).
« Last Edit: 07/24/2010 10:37 pm by nooneofconsequence »
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #42 on: 07/24/2010 10:21 pm »
VSE has been considered by many ... but consideration is not deliberation. In this case, vSE has been considered most through political lenses as to benefiting political groups most assuredly - boy and howdy.

Can you elaborate on the difference? I don't have much of a problem with the VSE, at least Marburger's take on it.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #43 on: 07/24/2010 11:05 pm »
VSE has been considered by many ... but consideration is not deliberation. In this case, vSE has been considered most through political lenses as to benefiting political groups most assuredly - boy and howdy.

Can you elaborate on the difference? I don't have much of a problem with the VSE, at least Marburger's take on it.
Martijn,

That's because you can drive in the direction of your own agenda - like others do as well. In the abstract, almost all can find agreement.

The specifics nowadays must be more concise than in JFK's day. Because back then it mostly was a clean slate.

VSE is about reductionism - we go to moon as practice for mars. To many this means at the top level the parts are largely the same. We all know they aren't - they are designed for very specific purpose/environment. Instead the idea was to overbuild (Ares V, Altair) for moon as an excuse to imagine Mars. Locked in to a single spanning set architecture ... why they gave up on EELV was it was too small.

FY2011 was about cleaning the slate and restarting with new parts added in.
Minimalism, as with Stiedel's spiral development - that you build the parts  you need to go out of LEO with. Then the parts to go to a NEO. Then the parts for the next objective. So you use what you have on hand plus custom mission module to do next thing ... slow buildup of necessary capabilities. He wanted to be dragged into doing more missions sooner ... where he could push back with ... "ok, so can you do x and y using z" games.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #44 on: 07/24/2010 11:08 pm »
Aren't you arguing against Constellation rather than the VSE? The VSE seems completely compatible with a spiral approach. And I am passionately in favour of incrementalism and spiral development and have been for a very long time.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #45 on: 07/24/2010 11:26 pm »
Am jet lagged and groggy so not doing my best ATM. An example:

VSE assumes "establishing an extended human presence on the moon". Primarily because in going to  Mars ... you'd have an extended presence by definition. Reductionism. Yet the two are very different,  as Zubrin's often pointed out. You  don't plan on occupying the moon for no dedicated reason.

Minimalism / deliberation - we venture to NEO's to develop the skills for deep spaceflight as a bubble checkoff for an independent set of a few of the skills needed to get to Mars. As you complete the check offs, you then build up to the next level.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #46 on: 07/25/2010 02:25 am »
Um Mr. Gagnon, you left out the most important one: that NASA reach out to the Muslim world in order to make them feel better about themselves because of the Islamic world's contributions to astronomy 500 years ago....

While I am grateful for Muslim culture's preservation of Greek and Roman philosophy and learning throughout the Dark Ages, I was thinking that Muslim outreach would be more useful in repatriating some of those petrodollars we send to them by the boatload.

Besides, if we don't do it the Russians will. At least with us doing it we can control their spare parts.

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #47 on: 07/25/2010 02:34 am »
[quote link=topic=22320.msg621837#msg621837 date=1280005303]
Quote from:
I would add that Obama's position becomes easier to understand if you enumerate Obama's unwritten priorities for NASA:

- serve as an integral portion of the nation's laboratory and research infrastructure
- contribute to long term technology developments as that enhances US competitive stance
- contribute to mid term technology development for military purposes
- help contribute to the economic power of the United States
- motivate the young to strive to excel in education and overall achievement
- serve as an outreach tool to the nations of Earth
- monitor all interesting bodies and phenomena in the universe, starting with the most important planet: Earth

you left out the most important one: that NASA reach out to the Muslim world in order to make them feel better about themselves because of the Islamic world's contributions to astronomy 500 years ago....

[/quote]
Nowhere does the President mention HSF, which he does not like.  IMO he wants to funnel the money to his education buddies.     And that doesnt inspire the nation, playing with chemistry sets in a lab.  There must be a defined and active inspirational program, that is what motivates many many people.

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #48 on: 07/25/2010 02:51 am »
Nowhere does the President mention HSF, which he does not like.  IMO he wants to funnel the money to his education buddies.     And that doesnt inspire the nation, playing with chemistry sets in a lab.  There must be a defined and active inspirational program, that is what motivates many many people.

That's my list that I typed up quickly. Obama may have other items or phrase them differently, but I believe I'm close.

Look at Apollo: it satisfied outreach to other nations (fight cold war) and inspire the youth. That's why it worked for Kennedy and Johnson. HSF was simply a means to those ends, even back then.

I personally think HSF is important for a variety of reasons, but many intelligent people disagree and I understand why. If you had a space company that was comprised of more like minded people on HSF and had access to some of the funding NASA gets, you would have less infighting on how essential HSF is. That's why it's time to get that which can be accomplished by American corporations out of NASA's duty sphere. Some maintain that would simply make it easier for politicians to turn the money off, but I disagree. No one in Congress wants to see the next boots on the Moon, Mars, or asteroids be made in China, so the scare would still work. We woulds simply be able to stretch the space dollar further with less fighting.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #49 on: 07/25/2010 04:28 am »
[...] Obama's unwritten priorities for NASA:
[...]
- motivate the young to strive to excel in education and overall achievement
- serve as an outreach tool to the nations of Earth

These two, and a combination of them, may be a very high NASA priority from Obama's perspective.  Those who don't understand this priority dismiss it by ridiculing the "Muslim schoolchildren" incident.

But in fact NASA's greatest value is in showing the youth of the world (and others who are impressionable) that the United States and the "American Way" are bitchin'.  U.S. "leadership" of the ISS program is all about that at its core, and only peripherally about microgravity science.

Prestige and "soft power" are what the U.S. buys with NASA human spaceflight funding.  That's what the Senate is trying to buy with heavy lift funding.  It's not clear Dr. Spudis totally gets that....
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #50 on: 07/25/2010 04:55 am »
I don't have much of a problem with the VSE, at least Marburger's take on it.

Back in 2006 Marburger said, 'Questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not. Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, "The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program." So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative.' (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999)

But now, in 2010, that decision isn't quite so clear.  President Obama doesn't really seem to share the vision of incorporating the Solar System into the human economic sphere.
« Last Edit: 07/25/2010 05:07 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #51 on: 07/25/2010 05:57 am »
Am jet lagged and groggy so not doing my best ATM. An example:

VSE assumes "establishing an extended human presence on the moon". Primarily because in going to  Mars ... you'd have an extended presence by definition. Reductionism. Yet the two are very different,  as Zubrin's often pointed out. You  don't plan on occupying the moon for no dedicated reason.

Minimalism / deliberation - we venture to NEO's to develop the skills for deep spaceflight as a bubble checkoff for an independent set of a few of the skills needed to get to Mars. As you complete the check offs, you then build up to the next level.

Oh brother, now we're back to the ever-so-cryptic mode. OK, you've got jet lag meeting with all these Nobel Prize winners looking for ET. That's awsome Dude!

But what do you mean by "reductionism" anyway. In science, reductionism is considered a good thing. There are at least two forms: part-whole reductionism, as when one explains the properties of water by pointing out the properties of the parts of a water molecule; then there's theoretical reductionism, as when we say that Newton's theory of gravity can be reduced to Einstein's. But neither of these seems to apply to the VSE. What is the VSE reducing? I don't get it. Sorry, I can't read your mind.

Also, your nutshell characterization of the VSE doesn't jibe with the reality. You seem to think that President Bush intended that the Moon be a MERE means to an end: Mars. But that's not the case. Finding life on Mars is not the only reason to go into space. The VSE was primarily about adding strategic and economic values into the "deliberation" process, in addition to the esoteric science of little practical import.

Bottom line: If you have a problem with the VSE, then spit it out, and tell us what that is. "Reductionism"?!? Give me a break, and give me a real reason for your antagonism.
« Last Edit: 07/25/2010 06:04 am by Warren Platts »
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #52 on: 07/25/2010 06:00 am »
Quote from: sdsd
Prestige and "soft power" are what the U.S. buys with NASA human spaceflight funding.  That's what the Senate is trying to buy with heavy lift funding.  It's not clear Dr. Spudis totally gets that....

You are wrong. It's completely clear that Dr. Spudis gets that. Just read his blog. It's spelled out in black and white. Unbelievable!!!
« Last Edit: 07/25/2010 12:50 pm by Warren Platts »
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #53 on: 07/25/2010 08:14 am »
I don't have much of a problem with the VSE, at least Marburger's take on it.

Back in 2006 Marburger said, 'Questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not. Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, "The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program." So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative.' (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999)

But now, in 2010, that decision isn't quite so clear.  President Obama doesn't really seem to share the vision of incorporating the Solar System into the human economic sphere.

The interpretation you describe is what got me enthusiastic about VSE.

However, I think Obama's budget did aim for two major paradigm shifts (backed by significant cash) that did uphold this vision.

(1) Commercial space. I think this is a solid attempt to open the possibility of commercially viable HSF where the government is not the sole client. Of course someone like Bowing can build a gemini-style capsule.

(2) Exploration Technology, especially ISRU, and a precursor mission which actually has an ISRU component. This is a major paradigm shift. Rather than the minimum of exploration technology necessary for a mission, a mission to advance the technology that actually makes it plausible to sustain a presence or an industry there.


Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #54 on: 07/25/2010 10:25 am »
Of course someone like Bowing can build a gemini-style capsule.

Considering they developed the Shuttle orbiter and the Delta IV they could obviously do a lot more than that. Money is what would be needed (and competition to make/keep them honest), not some special NASA secret sauce.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #55 on: 07/25/2010 10:31 am »
Back in 2006 Marburger said, 'Questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not. Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, "The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program." So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative.' (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999)

Thanks for that quote, I did not know he said that. Advancing U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program is a much less ambitious goal than incorporating the solar system in our economic sphere. I'd say the question was either not decided or decided in the negative.
« Last Edit: 07/25/2010 11:06 am by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline telomerase99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #56 on: 07/25/2010 11:01 am »
Where are the checks and balances in our government? How can it be known that an institution is literally burning money and yet money is just routed over without being competitively awarded again and again?

Its as if nobody cares if anything actually gets done. The status quo in this case has unfortunately been to get nothing done, so that is what has all of the backing. I am ashamed of our government.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #57 on: 07/25/2010 11:08 am »
Sometimes the checks and balances are part of the problem. I see no easy solution. A line item veto might help, but I'm sure that will turn out to have its own set of failure modes too.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #58 on: 07/25/2010 12:36 pm »
Back in 2006 Marburger said, 'Questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not. Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, "The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program." So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative.' (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999)

Thanks for that quote, I did not know he said that. Advancing U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program is a much less ambitious goal than incorporating the solar system in our economic sphere. I'd say the question was either not decided or decided in the negative.

Why do you take Marburger for an imbecile?

Clearly, what he said is that advancing scientific, security, and economic US national interests is basically equivalent to incorporating the solar system into the human economy. One is not less ambitious than the other; they are the same thing he said. "Incorporating" the Solar System doesn't mean you abandon "spiral" development; you still proceed in a logical fashion, with the logical next step being lunar ISRU, and not bypass everything in order to do a pointless flags 'n' footprints mission to Pluto!

The question in question was whether it's a good idea that the US space program be directed toward advancing the national interests of the US of A, which boils down to advancing US preeminence, which in turn boils down to demonstrating to the rest of the world the superiority of the "American way"--i.e., the superiority of democracy and free market capitalism, as opposed to the alternative dictatorial, corporatist, semi-fascist worldview--which in turn boils down to incorporating space into the US economy, which in turn boils down to learning how to live off the land in space: that is, to use the resources of space in order to leverage our spaceflight capability.

The ultimate reason for all this is respect for the US taxpayer. If we're going to spend this godawful amount of money on outer space!, then at least do it such a manner so as the taxpayers get the most bang for their bucks. That means taking advantage of "2 for 1's" wherever you can. That boils down to lunar ISRU, where one can do: (1) "pure" planetary science; and (2) cut the cost of beyond LEO spaceflight in half. It's that simple.

At the time, as Marburger said, the answer to the question of whether to economize the space program was a definite "yes". This was the Bush administration, of course.

For now, under the current, possibly foreign-born President, the answer is "no". For now, we will NOT use the resources of space to save taxpayer dollars. For now, rather than advancing US national interests, the US taxpayer funded space program is supposed to help the rest of the world feel good about itself--and of course, if that's the case, helping the rest of the world feel good about itself is not worth $19 billion USD annually, and the budget should and will be gutted and handed over to the educational bloated bureacracy, which is no doubt the plan all along.

You people are being led off to slaughter, and you're going along with it happily without realizing what's really going on....
« Last Edit: 07/25/2010 12:50 pm by Warren Platts »
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Paul D. Spudis on NASA management.
« Reply #59 on: 07/25/2010 12:47 pm »
Why do you take Marburger for an inaccurate?

I don't.

Quote
Clearly, what he said is that advancing scientific, security, and economic national interests is basically equivalent to incorporating the solar system into the human economy.

He does appear to be saying that, but I disagree the two are equivalent. Seeing the rest of the solar system incorporated into our economic sphere would be a wonderful thing, and it is probably possible for NASA to lay the foundation for that within its current budget, though not with its present course, especially not with the Senate "compromise". In my opinion that is a much more ambitious goal than just advancing scientific, security and economic national interests. In fact it isn't obvious that government funded manned spaceflight can be justified just on those grounds or even at all. If there is to be a NASA at all, then it ought to have the more ambitious goal of incorporating the solar system into our economic sphere in its charter.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Tags:
 

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