Author Topic: Augustine Commission Members Announced  (Read 97664 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #40 on: 05/29/2009 04:50 am »
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 have my doubts that an NEO mission would be baselined so early.  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.
« Last Edit: 05/29/2009 04:57 am by Blackstar »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #41 on: 05/29/2009 04:52 am »
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"!

Wanna make a bet?

I'll bet you that they're not going to address science.

Don't assume that because something happened 19 years ago with a different set of people, a different president, a different set of ground rules, and a different environment, that it will happen again.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #42 on: 05/29/2009 04:56 am »
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)

CAIB didn't operate under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).  This is a FACA committee.  CAIB conducted most of its investigation in private, including information gathering and deliberations.  (I was there.  I also operate under a special provision of the FACA today.)

One of the rules for FACA is that any information-gathering session that this committee conducts will have to be open to the public.  That does not mean that it has to be televised or webcast.  (Providing that kind of access is a pain unless you have a facility that is set up to do it.)
« Last Edit: 05/29/2009 04:58 am by Blackstar »

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #43 on: 05/29/2009 08:57 am »
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"!

Wanna make a bet?

I'll bet you that they're not going to address science.

I agree. Because this commission is about the HSF part of NASA, which has pretty much nothing to do with (space) science.

Btw. I like the list given by Ed. Because it would be realistic, given the budget. And useful for the people, the taxpayers giving the budget.

Analyst

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #44 on: 05/29/2009 09:12 am »
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?

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.

Sunk costs don't matter. All that matters is how much & how long it will take to get from here to the end goal.  If an alternative is cheaper & faster, but involves repeating work already done, so what?  It is still cheaper and faster!  The only thing lost is pride.

Failure is not neccessarily a bad thing.  It shows you're learning.  NASA have got sucked in by their own legend that they have to be perfect.  Failure is a bloody option.
« Last Edit: 05/29/2009 09:18 am by kkattula »

Offline Gene DiGennaro

  • Armchair Astronaut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Baltimore, Md
    • Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #45 on: 05/29/2009 02:06 pm »
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).



NEO..would that imply a flyby of a near Earth asteroid? If so, that actually sounds exciting.

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #46 on: 05/29/2009 02:12 pm »
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.

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).


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #47 on: 05/29/2009 02:16 pm »

snip

And 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

They 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.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #48 on: 05/29/2009 02:33 pm »
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.

The answer to your last question is, we had an election between then and now, and different folks are in charge. Whether they'll do anything different (or even anything at all) remains to be seen. The one thing we know is, Garver is interested in NEO before Moon. That may not matter.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #49 on: 05/29/2009 03:05 pm »
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


Oh my goodness! Just started reading the latest posts on here and that made me fall clean off my chair! :)
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 Chris Bergin

Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #50 on: 05/29/2009 03:15 pm »
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).


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.


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.
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.**

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #51 on: 05/29/2009 03:32 pm »

snip

And 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

They 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 each of the parent companies.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/index_about.html

P.S. The joint-venture resulted in litigation between the companies being stopped. There was issues about ULA creating a monopoly with SpaceX making a complaint to the U.S. FTC prior to its approval.
« Last Edit: 05/29/2009 03:38 pm by yg1968 »

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #52 on: 05/29/2009 03:35 pm »

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.

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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #53 on: 05/29/2009 03:40 pm »

snip

And 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

They 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.


It was really created to Atlas and Delta in business.  Boeing was ready to walk away from Delta.

Anyways, Boeing has had Delta less than 20 years (it is MDAC heritage) and same goes for Atlas and LM  (heritage GD).  The panel members did not work on this systems or their heritage companies and hence wouldn't hold any allegiance to them. 
« Last Edit: 05/29/2009 03:44 pm by Jim »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #54 on: 05/29/2009 03:57 pm »
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).


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.


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.

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. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #55 on: 05/29/2009 04:03 pm »
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.

One of the concepts I've seen involves Orion together with an early version of Altair. It also has a reduced crew of three or maybe even two. There are a couple of published papers on this.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Jeff Lerner

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 617
  • Toronto, Canada
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 240
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #56 on: 05/29/2009 04:09 pm »

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. 

...Agree with you totally....my $0.02...I'm tired of just "circling the block".....I want to see HSF take us some place beyond LEO...I want to go back to the Moon..I want to go to Mars...I wasn't hot for an NEO mission but at this point I'm "go" for that too..any place but going 'round and 'round the Earth....I want to see us go sooner than later...right now I'd settle for another 'flags and footprints' program...anywhere...:)

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 487
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #57 on: 05/29/2009 05:00 pm »
First meeting set for June 17th

http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2009-12661_PI.pdf

Edit: Got this link of Jeff_Foust's Twitter page..
« Last Edit: 05/29/2009 05:01 pm by TrueBlueWitt »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #58 on: 05/29/2009 05:41 pm »
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.

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???

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #59 on: 05/29/2009 06:00 pm »
Is something like a fly-by or one-way still on the table???

Technically, anything about Mars is off the table.

Appropriations Bill language ... "Finally, bill language is included prohibiting funding of any research, development, or demonstration activities related exclusively to the human exploration of Mars."

thanks to Barney Frank

Tags:
 

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