Author Topic: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now  (Read 39159 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9988
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1037
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #40 on: 04/04/2013 02:55 pm »
Quote from: Pete Wilson
Without a credible long-duration human mission, this space transportation system could end up mothballed, possibly well before that first manned flight planned for 2021.

This is a valid concern, presented in a neutral fashion.

Quote
the Falcon Heavy with its payload to LEO of more than 50 tons is now a much lower-cost alternative than the SLS.

It is not.  It might be.  If Mr. Wilson cannot or will not grammatically differentiate between a possible future and the actual present, then his opinions are biased and his conclusions will also be biased.  Which they are, even though I agree with his proposal in general:

Quote
This money could then be redirected to continue the planned flight tests of the Orion spacecraft with the much lower-cost Falcon Heavy booster while making a robust investment in a first-generation space station in the vicinity of the Moon.

There is no technical reason that Orion could not be mated to the FH, and I stand by every one of my arguments in favor of such standardization.  A substitution of launch vehicle as he suggests could certainly be made to work, and in an honest, cooperative, intelligently designed world, the savings could be redirected to the construction of an L-point station/depot/hotel, in order to support a four to six person lunar polar base.

However, honesty, cooperation, and intelligent design are not a part of the liberal or conservative political vocabularies.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13419
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11782
  • Likes Given: 10991
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #41 on: 04/04/2013 03:38 pm »


I'm afraid I don't quite follow what you're saying.

I was going to say something similar about every post you've made on this thread! :)

So where are you all going to find the money, which will be several billion, to cancel SLS?

Several billion??? why would it be several billion???  But anyway... Sunk cost. Better spend it now and avoid the tens of billions more that will be spent producing nothing at all useful (that's the safe way to bet)

As for not understanding me I'm happy to clarify but I think my views are pretty simple and pretty clear. The post I was referring to.. I could not parse out what the author was trying to say.
"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 JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9988
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1037
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #42 on: 04/04/2013 04:07 pm »
Lar:  They typically say they don't understand you when what they really mean to say is that they don't agree with you, and that you're also wrong, largely based on an argument from authority.

You can tell when somebody is trying to understand you when they use straightforward language talking about what you're talking about.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #43 on: 04/04/2013 04:27 pm »

Ah, this looks relevant: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-609R (click for full text):-

Quote
...After the President proposed canceling the Constellation program in his fiscal year 2011 budget request, NASA reported that the agency's costs associated with terminating the various Constellation program contracts could reach close to $1 billion. As we reported previously, responsibility for these potential costs became an issue between NASA and its Constellation contractors. The questions about responsibility for potential termination liability costs, coupled with the Constellation program's constrained budget profile, led to disruption in work activities at some contractors. Because of these questions regarding responsibility for potential termination liability costs and the impact they could have on NASA's ability to execute its projects effectively, Congress asked us to assess NASA's policies and practices pertaining to the management and funding of contract termination liability, as well as interactions between the agency and its contractors related to termination liability.

NASA's policy on management and funding of contract termination liability is to rely on the FAR's limitation of funds or limitation of cost clauses, which act as a mechanism to limit the government's liability in the event of a contract termination to the amount of funds currently allotted to a contract. ...
(My bold)

cheers, Martin

It sure is relevant.

And BTW, we have been carrying TL for SLS, Orion, and GSDO moving forward since then.  CFO and others have been adamant that we not put the agency in an untenable position again.  Obviously the Programs have resisted, it means carrying money they can not spend.  That and they have to actually have track it which means a half decent financial control system...

Put simply, we are in a much better position regarding TL.  Should the day come, it is my understanding that the agreements are in place and the money is there.  Whether or not that holds true, or vanishes in a puff of smoke the day before the press release...my crystal ball isn't that good.

Also, we were supposed to have a hearing on TL earlier this year, we never did.  but we have 2 on neo's...surprised?  i wasn't...congress and the people are fickle and more inclined to talk about shiny objects than substance.

All that being said, this op-ed is trash IMHO.  Where a convincing argument could be made, there is hyperbole.  This does nothing for anybody.

http://democrats.science.house.gov/hearing/nasa%E2%80%99s-implementation-termination-liability
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7096
  • Liked: 2618
  • Likes Given: 1355
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #44 on: 04/04/2013 05:44 pm »
Ah, this looks relevant: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-609R (click for full text):-

Quote
...After the President proposed canceling the Constellation program in his fiscal year 2011 budget request, NASA reported that the agency's costs associated with terminating the various Constellation program contracts could reach close to $1 billion.

Very interesting.  Are these the same termination liabilities that the Augustine Commission, citing NASA, put at between $3 billion and $11 billion?

Quote from: Augustine Report, p. 93
The Committee used the EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicle to investigate the possibility of an essentially commercial acquisition of the required heavy-launch capability by a small NASA organization similar to a system program office in the Department of Defense. It would eliminate somewhat the historic carrying cost of many Apollo- and Shuttle-era facilities and systems. This creates the possibility of substantially reduced operating costs, which may ultimately allow NASA to escape its conundrum of not having sufficient resources to both operate existing systems and build a new one.

However, this efficiency of operations would require significant near-term realignment of NASA. Substantial reductions in workforce, facilities closures, and mothballing would be required. When the Committee asked NASA to assess the cost of this process, the estimates ranged from $3 billion to $11 billion over five years.

[Emphasis added.]
« Last Edit: 04/04/2013 05:46 pm by Proponent »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7096
  • Liked: 2618
  • Likes Given: 1355
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #45 on: 04/04/2013 05:49 pm »
Give SLS a purpose; some missions!

1: EML-2 Station. 2: Near Earth Asteroid. 3: The moons of Mars. There! Simple, really. After that? Crews to the Lunar Poles, the Sands of Mars and drilling into Ceres...

As simonbp and JBF have said above, wouldn't it be better to choose (and fund) the mission, and then decide whether using SLS is the best way to accomplish it?
« Last Edit: 04/04/2013 05:55 pm by Proponent »

Offline MP99

Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #46 on: 04/04/2013 05:53 pm »

Ah, this looks relevant: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-609R (click for full text):-

Quote
...After the President proposed canceling the Constellation program in his fiscal year 2011 budget request, NASA reported that the agency's costs associated with terminating the various Constellation program contracts could reach close to $1 billion. As we reported previously, responsibility for these potential costs became an issue between NASA and its Constellation contractors. The questions about responsibility for potential termination liability costs, coupled with the Constellation program's constrained budget profile, led to disruption in work activities at some contractors. Because of these questions regarding responsibility for potential termination liability costs and the impact they could have on NASA's ability to execute its projects effectively, Congress asked us to assess NASA's policies and practices pertaining to the management and funding of contract termination liability, as well as interactions between the agency and its contractors related to termination liability.

NASA's policy on management and funding of contract termination liability is to rely on the FAR's limitation of funds or limitation of cost clauses, which act as a mechanism to limit the government's liability in the event of a contract termination to the amount of funds currently allotted to a contract. ...
(My bold)

cheers, Martin

It sure is relevant.

And BTW, we have been carrying TL for SLS, Orion, and GSDO moving forward since then.  CFO and others have been adamant that we not put the agency in an untenable position again.  Obviously the Programs have resisted, it means carrying money they can not spend.  That and they have to actually have track it which means a half decent financial control system...

Put simply, we are in a much better position regarding TL.  Should the day come, it is my understanding that the agreements are in place and the money is there.  Whether or not that holds true, or vanishes in a puff of smoke the day before the press release...my crystal ball isn't that good.

Also, we were supposed to have a hearing on TL earlier this year, we never did.  but we have 2 on neo's...surprised?  i wasn't...congress and the people are fickle and more inclined to talk about shiny objects than substance.

Thanks for the info - that's the first that I'd heard/noticed re TL since the new programme started, but it's what I'd assumed.

If the programme is seen through to a conclusion, I presume those liabilities would lessen, and some of the TL reserves could then be drawn on for completing the programme? IE the money held today will be spent later in the programme, but for now it's restricting progress.

cheers, Martin

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #47 on: 04/04/2013 06:11 pm »
Thanks to DaveKlinger:

"Regarding termination liability, search for the phrase in this May 2010 Senate testimony.  There are some misconceptions in some of the posts.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg66487/html/CHRG-111shrg66487.htm "
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #48 on: 04/04/2013 06:47 pm »
Give SLS a purpose; some missions!

1: EML-2 Station. 2: Near Earth Asteroid. 3: The moons of Mars. There! Simple, really. After that? Crews to the Lunar Poles, the Sands of Mars and drilling into Ceres...

As simonbp and JBF have said above, wouldn't it be better to choose (and fund) the mission, and then decide whether using SLS is the best way to accomplish it?

Good observation.  But is the mission a flight or two or dozens?

The correct figure of merit is costs over the program lifetime.  X number of missions over 20 or 30 years, similar to the HEFT format. 

One can easily conduct a single mission to the moon cheaper with existing technology than developing technology for that single mission.

Likewise, as pointed out, one can conduct a single mission to the moon with existing fleet rather than use SLS.  In this case however, even if SLS was developed, it would still be cheaper with the smaller fleet, so it really is not the issue at hand.

The issue is the mission mind set versus overall costs vs dozens(?), including a mixed set.

The debate forward will be the sustainable architecture of dozens of missions versus the one-offs.  It directly affects the depot versus refueling stage architecture, including propellant choice, for example. ;)

Whatever approach is taken, engineers and companies want to improve their products, especially if then can spin the technology off to other commercial venues, so R&D should be continued along with missions...a balance.

So if the goal is sending the crew to moon or L2 or an asteroid or Mars is a one time deal, then the mission set is 4.   Clearly a much more robust HSF program, that lowers launch costs for the uncrewed programs as well, can now be envisioned with depots and more than 4 missions with larger flight rates.  For example, one can see how goldenspike and Mars flybys fit one mold versus another. 

Buying launch services one year and funding development in another provides this rarely seen flexible path forward.  Most PMs are looking forward to something different than underfunded flat budgets with no flexibility. 

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9988
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1037
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #49 on: 04/04/2013 06:49 pm »
REgarding the GPO link that Chris provided, the short area where they discuss termination liability is not clear at all.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #50 on: 04/04/2013 06:55 pm »
Thanks to DaveKlinger:

"Regarding termination liability, search for the phrase in this May 2010 Senate testimony.  There are some misconceptions in some of the posts.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg66487/html/CHRG-111shrg66487.htm "

Senator Vitter. But are the termination liability costs
being shifted onto the program? It is my understanding they
are, which is not normal procedure. It is my understanding this
is the case because of the Administration's plan as opposed to
other----
    Mr. Bolden. Congressman, the responsibility for termination
liability lies with the company. And that is contractual.
That
is not something that we change. I cannot change it because it
is in the contract.
    Now, where the money lies----

emphasis mine.

i wonder if we'll have that hearing which was postponed indefinitely.  probably not. 

after all who wants to talk about carrying the cost of insurance...regardless of which level it is kept at (and btw, at HEO and ESD, there is less ability to exercise control than usual since each is their own program, its not like the directorate can shift funds or hold reserve...i think there's what, like $1m ufe?).  are we going to tell congress we'll hold TL for everything at the top line? or just the HEO programs? would we take TL for HEO from SMD? from CAS?...

it's a lose/lose discussion on TL.  you dont want to say the programs have to hold it, that's money they can't spend to get work done.  you dont want to say the agency holds it for everything, thats not realistic or prudent.  you also dont want to give the impression that other directorates/programs/orgs are being asked to bankroll TL for others.  lose/lose.

edit to add link for more info on contract termination courtesy of your friends at the dau:  https://dap.dau.mil/acquipedia/Pages/ArticleDetails.aspx?aid=97fe4c19-3c0d-4103-882d-f09483dde9ed
« Last Edit: 04/04/2013 07:15 pm by BeanEstimator »
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8007
  • Liked: 2947
  • Likes Given: 277
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #51 on: 04/04/2013 07:00 pm »
RAND...for a "think tank", I've seen very little evidence of actual thought behind anything they've ever said.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5361
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2222
  • Likes Given: 3864
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #52 on: 04/04/2013 07:09 pm »
I said in 2011 that if you cut funds, they wont come back in another form. I was told I was wrong. I was not.

You're still wrong. The minor cuts that followed Shuttle were more than made up in later programs. NASA's budget is flat and has been for decades. Your claim is that cutting X will be the end of human spaceflight where X = whatever the current boondoggle is. The cut inevitably comes, human spaceflight doesn't end.


"More than made up for"   ??!!  Hope I didn't quote you out of context, but every time I do quote you, you're quick to jump on me and assert that (pretty much) everything I say is always wrong. But go look up old threads from a few years ago and see if I've turned out so wrong - my batting average is good - even when I haven't wanted it to be.

And I know Human Spaceflight hasn't ended, for heavens sake man - it may never end (China, Commercial space stations: someday, if ever). But in the current budget environment, ISS wont be extended after 2020. What will Russia do then? Build another Mir?

And if SLS is canceled - I say again (wearily) don't automatically assume its funds will be magically transferred to another, golden manned exploration alternative - more like a 'golden calf'.

Don't feel obliged to answer - some of the above were rhetorical.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5361
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2222
  • Likes Given: 3864
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #53 on: 04/04/2013 07:09 pm »
RAND...for a "think tank", I've seen very little evidence of actual thought behind anything they've ever said.

Certainly not lately...
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13419
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11782
  • Likes Given: 10991
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #54 on: 04/04/2013 07:12 pm »

And I know Human Spaceflight hasn't ended, for heavens sake man - it may never end (China, Commercial space stations: someday, if ever). But in the current budget environment, ISS wont be extended after 2020. What will Russia do then? Build another Mir?

My understanding is that the Russians have already planned for that eventuality... they would calve off the Russian Segment, add a few pieces and carry on.

RAND...for a "think tank", I've seen very little evidence of actual thought behind anything they've ever said.

Certainly not lately...

Seems kinda ad hominem... RAND has been around a long time and done a lot of stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation
« Last Edit: 04/04/2013 07:13 pm by Lar »
"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

Online kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2997
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 649
  • Likes Given: 112
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #55 on: 04/04/2013 07:55 pm »
Give SLS a purpose; some missions!

1: EML-2 Station. 2: Near Earth Asteroid. 3: The moons of Mars. There! Simple, really. After that? Crews to the Lunar Poles, the Sands of Mars and drilling into Ceres...

As simonbp and JBF have said above, wouldn't it be better to choose (and fund) the mission, and then decide whether using SLS is the best way to accomplish it?

And if it turns out you need SLS for that one particular mission, you have to delay it for 7 or 8 years while you develop SLS? No funding will survive that long a delay or bear the added cost.
 
For the last 30 years, people have been proposing 1, 2, 3, etc. And every time someone says "no you can't do that, we don't have a HLV anymore".
 
Maybe these missions can be done without HLV. It doesn't matter if they can. As long as there's a reasonable doubt, the objectors can and have stopped all such projects.
 
Think of SLS as a rather expensive counter argument. Once you have it, every thing is more plausible, whether you use it or not.
 
Of course if you do have it and are paying to maintain the capacity, the marginal cost of using it will often be far less than the alternatives, so you'll probably use it.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #56 on: 04/04/2013 08:20 pm »
Give SLS a purpose; some missions!

1: EML-2 Station. 2: Near Earth Asteroid. 3: The moons of Mars. There! Simple, really. After that? Crews to the Lunar Poles, the Sands of Mars and drilling into Ceres...

As simonbp and JBF have said above, wouldn't it be better to choose (and fund) the mission, and then decide whether using SLS is the best way to accomplish it?

And if it turns out you need SLS for that one particular mission, you have to delay it for 7 or 8 years while you develop SLS? No funding will survive that long a delay or bear the added cost.
 
For the last 30 years, people have been proposing 1, 2, 3, etc. And every time someone says "no you can't do that, we don't have a HLV anymore".
 
Maybe these missions can be done without HLV. It doesn't matter if they can. As long as there's a reasonable doubt, the objectors can and have stopped all such projects.
 
Think of SLS as a rather expensive counter argument. Once you have it, every thing is more plausible, whether you use it or not.
 
Of course if you do have it and are paying to maintain the capacity, the marginal cost of using it will often be far less than the alternatives, so you'll probably use it.

Current Budget for SLS/Orion is 2.5B.

What value are the marginal costs and what is "low"? Would the alternatives be terminated?  If not, SLS is just added costs.

Making the SLS Business Case Close--will the historical costs of SSME, ET, and SRMs be lower than the $1B/year?

Here are the links:
- External Tank Contact 2000 to 2010 2.93B, 18 Tanks = 293M/yr or 162M/tank
- ATK 12 Years, $4.1Billion = 340M/yr
- P&W: 2.25B 4 years = 560M/yr

Do not forget to include the upper stage and J2X, avionics, operations.....

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2321
  • USA
  • Liked: 1864
  • Likes Given: 828
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #57 on: 04/04/2013 09:55 pm »
We are almost a 15 TRILLION Dollar economy. That's 15,000 Billion produced in goods and services every year.

And we're getting hung up over a few BIllion to build a Heavy Lift capability? What a farce. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

We conquered LEO and are now passing it off quite appropriately to commercial as best we can. An action I think will have profoundly positive implications in both the near and the long term.

BLEO, in my view, is different. At least for now. I believe we will need SLS and the full weight and resources of the US Gov't to enable a meaningful Human presence BLEO. If not for today, then for tomorrow.  And not for the remembrance of glories past but for an amazing future to come. A future realized by our drive to imagine and our need to explore.

Besides, I can't take another damn commission. So let's just get on with it.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Jason Davies

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #58 on: 04/04/2013 10:18 pm »
It's never to do with some crusade to "save" a few billion for the American taxpayer, because that simply isn't how it works.

SLS could have been any configuration and you'd still have people rushing to take the opposing view and wanting it to be cancelled.

Why? Because it's a NASA vehicle and that's all some, even if it's literally about 10 people, need to know to oppose it and oppose it strongly.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35720
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19868
  • Likes Given: 10362
Re: Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now
« Reply #59 on: 04/04/2013 10:34 pm »
1) There are some people who think that NASA shouldn't be building launch vehicles when there are several suitable commercial launch vehicles which launch defense and commercial payloads already and for a pretty low cost (compared to cost of NASA developing its own independent capability).

2) There are some people who think NASA should not develop its own launch vehicle no matter what the price in the private sector is.

3) There are also some people who think SLS as is designed is unnecessary given the launch rate.

4) There are some people who like SLS but think that the money would be more appropriately spent on other aspects, such as HSF payloads, before we start spending a lot of money on a new big launch vehicle.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0