mong' - 25/11/2006 2:53 PMHi Dr Stanley it's good to have you here.to add to David's question, did you, in your lunar surface systems study, take into account missions to near earth objects ?recently we have seen a quote from NASA people (I can't remember who exactly) stating that an asteroid mission using elements of the constellation program was being looked at.
Doug Stanley - 22/11/2006 4:55 PMQuotePaul Howard - 22/11/2006 2:18 PMMore of a general question, but as I'm sure you can appreciate, such public access to people like yourself is rare and greatly appreciated.You mentioned a team of 40 and two months. I'm facinated by how you bring together a team.Such as: Finding the right people, the right people applying, their availability to dedicate time to the Study etc. Obviously, you don't have an American Idol type "Want to be on this study?" contest But is it literally phone calls and letters of confirmation to bring together the team? I find this all fascinating.As my old boss Antonio Elias (who is doing a Q&A in another thread) would say "that reminds me of a story...". How we put together ESAS Team to have over 300 people working in two weeks is more interesting than this smaller study, but I will comment on both in great detail tomorrow...because it is a great story. I have an engagement this evening and have to sign off...But I will leave you with the original criteria for the 20 ESAS core Team members that I put together on my first day at HQ together with Mike G.:Selection of ESAS Core TeamSelection Criteria:- IQ- Technical competence and experience in field- Systems viewpoint, see “big picture”- Not in or too close to ESMD management- Knowledgeable of work done to date by ESMD and others- Mostly non-managers, can still do useful work- Original, creative thinkers- Objective, not prejudiced towards home Center or Program- Easy to work with, fun, no personality issues- Willing to express and defend viewpoints- Willing to listen to others viewpoints- Capable of multiple tasks, highly productiveCore Team Members:NASA:Doug Stanley – Study Manager (IPA - HQ)Steve Cook – Deputy Study Manager (MSFC)John Connolly – Deputy Study Manager (JSC - ESMD)Joe Hamaker (HQ)Marsha Ivins (JSC - ESMD)Wayne Peterson (JSC - ESMD)Jim Geffre (JSC - ESMD)Bill Cirillo (LaRC)Carey McClesky (KSC)Jeff Hanley (JSC)Steve Davis (MSFC - ESMD)Jay Falker (HQ - ESMD)Don Pettit (JSC)Full-Time Consultants:Bill Claybaugh (Self)Joe Fragola (SAIC)Part-Time Consultants:Jay GreeneJohn YoungBob SieckBob SeamansAdministrative Support:Mark Ogles (self)/Angela Michaels (APIO)Also have Center POCs at HQ, JSC, MSFC, LaRC, ARC, GRC, JPL
Paul Howard - 22/11/2006 2:18 PMMore of a general question, but as I'm sure you can appreciate, such public access to people like yourself is rare and greatly appreciated.You mentioned a team of 40 and two months. I'm facinated by how you bring together a team.Such as: Finding the right people, the right people applying, their availability to dedicate time to the Study etc. Obviously, you don't have an American Idol type "Want to be on this study?" contest But is it literally phone calls and letters of confirmation to bring together the team? I find this all fascinating.
Doug Stanley - 25/11/2006 5:08 PMI am going to have to cut this off soon...If you get your questions in by tomorrow morning...I will try to finish up and answer them tomorrow afternoon....
wingod - 25/11/2006 5:39 PMQuoteDoug Stanley - 25/11/2006 5:08 PMI am going to have to cut this off soon...If you get your questions in by tomorrow morning...I will try to finish up and answer them tomorrow afternoon....Here is my question.How do we keep the VSE/ESAS from ending up like SEI? Mike has only a limited ability to influence congress and with the switchover now and the inevitability of a new president in 08, how can ESAS survive to actually get us to the Moon with the demands of the baby boomer generation on national treasure looming?
Doug Stanley - 25/11/2006 3:31 PMThe EDS is only half full when it arrives on orbit; refilling it would add significantly to the lunar payload capability. It could also provide a place for it and the LSAM to remain to be topped off while waiting for the CEV (especially if there is a launch delay -- eliminating all LEO boil-off). A full-EDS stage or stages in LEO also could be used for Mars missions. We made sure there is nothing in the vehicle designs that would present this from being a possibility!
BTW, I am just an architect, I don't get to make up the requirements. I was given the requirements of 4 crew to the surface for 7 days and 6 folks to the ISS.
Wingod: Here is my question.How do we keep the VSE/ESAS from ending up like SEI? Mike has only a limited ability to influence congress and with the switchover now and the inevitability of a new president in 08, how can ESAS survive to actually get us to the Moon with the demands of the baby boomer generation on national treasure looming?[/QUOTE]Doug Stanley:Wow...talk about off-topic and beyond my capabilities to address...I wish I knew! There are a lot smarter people than me to address this topic. I think Mike's current hope is that he can make it inevitable to retire the Shuttle by turning off contracts and retiring an orbiter before he leaves, and be so far along in CEV/CLV development that there will be no way to prevent its development. But this could still leave us endlessly circling in LEO if a new Administration decides not to build the Lunar (or Mars) elements...There are no guarantees, but support for the VSE and Mike's vision for NASA is pretty bipartisan...[/QUOTE]
There's another thread that discusses the prospects of NASA (and by extension, VSE) in the new Congress that is relevant to wingod's question, I think, so I won't run this off track further by repeating a lot of that commentary. But I do have to say that Mike needs to be VERY careful about creating a "fait accompli" in terms of the way you describe his "current hope," because a lot of the strongest biparisan support in the Congress for VSE is also VERY CONCERNED about the gap between shuttle and CEV/CLV, and does not believe that has to be an either/or proposition if the OMB pulls its head out of the "dark regions" and provides adequate and responsible funding. Mike has no choice but to toe the line given him by the Administration, but you are correct, Doug, in saying there are "no guarantees" and arbitratily standing down the shuttle and abrupt contract termination in the name of protecting the "funding wedge" to develop Ares, Orion, etc., also runs the risk if the shuttle manifest hits a snag of not completing the space station. And THAT possibility--undermining an investment of $30-plus billion in development and operations costs alone that has been won in hard-fought congressional battles over the past 16 years--would be a very big mistake for NASA and the Administration and could very easily cost them VSE.
Doug Stanley - 25/11/2006 2:50 PMBTW, I am just an architect, I don't get to make up the requirements. I was given the requirements of 4 crew to the surface for 7 days and 6 folks to the ISS. If we had to take less, we might get a different architecture solution. Going to fewer crew would tend to make EELV-derivatives somewhat more attractive and even direct return trade better. But that was not the case.
David BAE - 26/11/2006 7:54 AMI'm interested to hear your Mars comment and I'm encouraged by it. I really do not understand why NASA is developing a crew transport to the ISS that is also tasked with exploration. Give the ISS requirement to COTS or HR ELV/EELV and allow NASA to place all its funding drives into exploration, or is this down to funding again?I don't have the data in front of me to make an educated evaluation of Ares I, but I really am concerned about those astronauts riding a single inline solid. I would assume they are going to be in for one hell of a nasty ride on first stage.
Jackson - 26/11/2006 6:44 AMAn international question Dr Stanley. While not much has been shown on plans by Russia and China's own VSE plans, do you believe the US should stick to its own plans, or cooperate with other nations (not China obviously)? Do you think a small space race would be a good form of motivation for US funding?
braddock - 25/11/2006 8:01 PMQuoteDoug Stanley - 25/11/2006 3:31 PMThe EDS is only half full when it arrives on orbit; refilling it would add significantly to the lunar payload capability. It could also provide a place for it and the LSAM to remain to be topped off while waiting for the CEV (especially if there is a launch delay -- eliminating all LEO boil-off). A full-EDS stage or stages in LEO also could be used for Mars missions. We made sure there is nothing in the vehicle designs that would present this from being a possibility!I find that a remarkable notion. Did ESAS run the numbers on using one or two re-fueled EDS stages to deliver manned or unmanned Mars missions with little modification? Is there a cocktail napkin somewhere with an EDS-derived Mars vehicle sketch?
jongoff - 25/11/2006 8:22 PMDr Stanley,Thank you for the reply. I'm glad I didn't offend you with my opinions. If you have the chance, I have some more questions.QuoteBTW, I am just an architect, I don't get to make up the requirements. I was given the requirements of 4 crew to the surface for 7 days and 6 folks to the ISS. Do you know where the 4 crew for 7 days number originally came from? As you say, it had a large effect on how the trades went. Was this a hard requirement set by the White House, or was it an internal NASA requirement?Thanks,~Jonathan Goff
Space101 - 25/11/2006 11:34 PMI don't have a question and I know I shouldn't be posting this, but I want to express my thanks for your time and willingness to answer questions here. I wonder how this would have all transpired in the 60s if the net was around and the Apollo team did a global Q and A!