I honestly think this review will work on a "stay the course" with refinements to the plan for what the vehicles will be tasked with doing.Remember that NEO note we got when we first heard word of the review? Using that, I can see the review going with:Ares I/Orion - ISS.ISS - push to 2020.Ares I/Orion NEO mission about 2017.Defer Lunar to 2022 ish (eek, I know).Move Mars up.
I hope you are right, but I've seen this show before. It will be Augustine Commission Strikes Again! Featuring Science, Science, Science!Mission to Planet Earth Two! ISS on the cheap! (How many Soyuz to make one Orion?)and Mars - a "very long-term goal"!
Do we know yet how the commission will operate? Will there be open & televised hearings similar to how the CAIB functioned? (I was glued to my TV set during those long days in 2003)
Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/29/2009 03:19 amI hope you are right, but I've seen this show before. It will be Augustine Commission Strikes Again! Featuring Science, Science, Science!Mission to Planet Earth Two! ISS on the cheap! (How many Soyuz to make one Orion?)and Mars - a "very long-term goal"!Wanna make a bet?I'll bet you that they're not going to address science.
Quote from: Blackstar on 05/29/2009 04:40 amThat's actually a poor argument. Sunk costs _do_ matter as a percentage of the overall costs of doing something. If you abandon what has already been done and start over, you will have to repeat a lot of stuff, and pay for it. So, to pose a hypothetical, if you stop production on the J-2, but determine that you still need an upper stage engine, can you build that engine from scratch for less cost than remains for completing the J-2?As I understand it, looking at things from a sunk cost perspective means looking at incremental cost and incremental gain, in other words what you were just doing.As to whether taking sunk costs into consideration is rational or not: from a career perspective it is, because admitting failure is a high incremental cost to pay and if you lose your job over it, any benefits will accrue to your successor.
That's actually a poor argument. Sunk costs _do_ matter as a percentage of the overall costs of doing something. If you abandon what has already been done and start over, you will have to repeat a lot of stuff, and pay for it. So, to pose a hypothetical, if you stop production on the J-2, but determine that you still need an upper stage engine, can you build that engine from scratch for less cost than remains for completing the J-2?
I honestly think this review will work on a "stay the course" with refinements to the plan for what the vehicles will be tasked with doing.Remember that NEO note we got when we first heard word of the review? Using that, I can see the review going with:Ares I/Orion - ISS.ISS - push to 2020.Ares I/Orion NEO mission about 2017.Defer Lunar to 2022 ish (eek, I know).Move Mars up.Not saying it's a good plan, but certainly not the worst (culling HSF).
I honestly think this review will work on a "stay the course" with refinements to the plan for what the vehicles will be tasked with doing.Remember that NEO note we got when we first heard word of the review? Using that, I can see the review going with:Ares I/Orion - ISS.ISS - push to 2020.Ares I/Orion NEO mission about 2017.Defer Lunar to 2022 ish (eek, I know).Move Mars up.Not saying it's a good plan, but certainly not the worst (culling HSF).I don't know, bar what I'm told is the thought process that it would take a massive decision to kill Ares now. And if they kill Ares now, why the hell wasn't it killed a year or more ago when the troubles really started.
Quote from: Jim on 05/29/2009 01:02 amsnipAnd how many times do I have to say it, Boeing and LM are no longer EELV.I hate to disagree with you but ULA is 100% owned by Boeing and LM. This keeps them right in the middle of EELVs.Danny Deger
snipAnd how many times do I have to say it, Boeing and LM are no longer EELV.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 05/29/2009 03:50 amQuote from: Danny Dot on 05/29/2009 03:44 am Current NASA communication is simply closed."NASA" - that is very generalized, and certainly not the case in ShuttleLand! I've been totally impressed with how SSP deal with dissent, they actually welcome it. Sure, impressing me means nothing, but here's one of what will be many examples on how at least SSP is not suffering from "closed communication":http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2007/08/endeavour-dissent-from-engineer-a-sign-of-post-columbia-changes/I agree Shuttleland is leading the way for NASA in this area. John Shannon probably has a lot to do with this. I sent him a link to this article and he wrote back a thank you. He said he sent it to his troops to get the word out he liked to hear the dissenting opinion. He also liked reading some positive press. He told me he was tired of getting beat up by the press on this issue.I would love to see Wayne Hale get a high level position in CxP. I always felt it was OK to argue with him on a technical matter. In fact I think he likes a good heated debate as a way to get to the bottom of a matter.Danny Deger
Quote from: Danny Dot on 05/29/2009 03:44 am Current NASA communication is simply closed."NASA" - that is very generalized, and certainly not the case in ShuttleLand! I've been totally impressed with how SSP deal with dissent, they actually welcome it. Sure, impressing me means nothing, but here's one of what will be many examples on how at least SSP is not suffering from "closed communication":http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2007/08/endeavour-dissent-from-engineer-a-sign-of-post-columbia-changes/
Current NASA communication is simply closed.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 05/29/2009 12:07 amI honestly think this review will work on a "stay the course" with refinements to the plan for what the vehicles will be tasked with doing.Remember that NEO note we got when we first heard word of the review? Using that, I can see the review going with:Ares I/Orion - ISS.ISS - push to 2020.Ares I/Orion NEO mission about 2017.Defer Lunar to 2022 ish (eek, I know).Move Mars up.Not saying it's a good plan, but certainly not the worst (culling HSF).NEO..would that imply a flyby of a near Earth asteroid? If so, that actually sounds exciting.
I have my doubts that an NEO mission would be baselined so early (2017). I'm actually pretty familiar with the study of an NEO mission, and there are some limitations to making any decision like this at this time. Several reasons: the study was preliminary and did not even reach the point of selecting viable targets (in other words, there may not be any of the right size, orbit, composition, rotation, etc.); heavy lift appears to be a requirement for such a mission; such a mission would require a second spacecraft in addition to Orion, and seven years is not a lot of time to build it.Of course, the commission can say anything it wants, but they would have a hard time making such a recommendation given the relative immaturity of the mission concept at this time.
Quote from: Danny Dot on 05/29/2009 02:52 amQuote from: Jim on 05/29/2009 01:02 amsnipAnd how many times do I have to say it, Boeing and LM are no longer EELV.I hate to disagree with you but ULA is 100% owned by Boeing and LM. This keeps them right in the middle of EELVs.Danny DegerThey are hands off and don't care if it sinks or swims. The reason it exists is so Boeing and LM don't have to put money into it.
Quote from: Blackstar on 05/29/2009 04:50 amI have my doubts that an NEO mission would be baselined so early (2017). I'm actually pretty familiar with the study of an NEO mission, and there are some limitations to making any decision like this at this time. Several reasons: the study was preliminary and did not even reach the point of selecting viable targets (in other words, there may not be any of the right size, orbit, composition, rotation, etc.); heavy lift appears to be a requirement for such a mission; such a mission would require a second spacecraft in addition to Orion, and seven years is not a lot of time to build it.Of course, the commission can say anything it wants, but they would have a hard time making such a recommendation given the relative immaturity of the mission concept at this time.
Quote from: Jim on 05/29/2009 02:16 pmQuote from: Danny Dot on 05/29/2009 02:52 amQuote from: Jim on 05/29/2009 01:02 amsnipAnd how many times do I have to say it, Boeing and LM are no longer EELV.I hate to disagree with you but ULA is 100% owned by Boeing and LM. This keeps them right in the middle of EELVs.Danny DegerThey are hands off and don't care if it sinks or swims. The reason it exists is so Boeing and LM don't have to put money into it.I have never heard of a parent company that doesn't care how its subsidiary is doing. It's formed as an LLC owned 50% by Boeing and 50% by LM. If it makes money, the parent company can receive distributions from the subsidiary. It is also an asset for the parent companies.
Quote from: Gene DiGennaro on 05/29/2009 02:06 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 05/29/2009 12:07 amI honestly think this review will work on a "stay the course" with refinements to the plan for what the vehicles will be tasked with doing.Remember that NEO note we got when we first heard word of the review? Using that, I can see the review going with:Ares I/Orion - ISS.ISS - push to 2020.Ares I/Orion NEO mission about 2017.Defer Lunar to 2022 ish (eek, I know).Move Mars up.Not saying it's a good plan, but certainly not the worst (culling HSF).NEO..would that imply a flyby of a near Earth asteroid? If so, that actually sounds exciting. As per my guesswork on the 2017 date, I really don't know what would be viable NEO mission outline. The only thing I've seen is a video on L2 which outlines an Orion rendezvous with an asteriod, prior to an EVA to its surface. It also appears to be precursored by a robotic mission.In that video they launch Orion on Ares I, and launch the EDS on an Atlas V Heavy. No idea if that could be done in reality, and I'd refer to Blackstar's post.Quote from: Blackstar on 05/29/2009 04:50 amI have my doubts that an NEO mission would be baselined so early (2017). I'm actually pretty familiar with the study of an NEO mission, and there are some limitations to making any decision like this at this time. Several reasons: the study was preliminary and did not even reach the point of selecting viable targets (in other words, there may not be any of the right size, orbit, composition, rotation, etc.); heavy lift appears to be a requirement for such a mission; such a mission would require a second spacecraft in addition to Orion, and seven years is not a lot of time to build it.Of course, the commission can say anything it wants, but they would have a hard time making such a recommendation given the relative immaturity of the mission concept at this time.
Agree. One of the biggest difficulties will be keeping the humans alive inside of Orion for that long, especially given the requirements shed that appears to have happened.
I say build Orion (should be a systems integration project). Build the launchers that have enough capapility and performance (Ares 1 does not) to allow several different conops. Build mission modules that can be easily outfitted, relatively speaking, for the mission and go. After all this is supposed to be exploration. Exploration by its definition is you don't know what your going to find. Some things will be interesting, some will not, but there is one thing that is certain. If you spend 20 years deciding where you're going to go, build the systems to go only there, what do you do next? At that rate, it will be multiple generations before we ever get beyond lunar space.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 05/29/2009 12:07 amI honestly think this review will work on a "stay the course" with refinements to the plan for what the vehicles will be tasked with doing.Remember that NEO note we got when we first heard word of the review? Using that, I can see the review going with:Ares I/Orion - ISS.ISS - push to 2020.Ares I/Orion NEO mission about 2017.Defer Lunar to 2022 ish (eek, I know).Move Mars up.Not saying it's a good plan, but certainly not the worst (culling HSF).I don't know, bar what I'm told is the thought process that it would take a massive decision to kill Ares now. And if they kill Ares now, why the hell wasn't it killed a year or more ago when the troubles really started.The sand chart doesn't support this content and schedule. And the NASA budget doesn't support Mars without a huge plus-up. Nobody who has seen the numbers expects to go to Mars w/o 5-10$B more per year, unless it is for a fly-by or a one-way mission, which has been discussed (seriously).
Is something like a fly-by or one-way still on the table???