Augustine Commission Members Announced

[Namechange User]

Orlando Sentinal has some of the members

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/05/heres-the-names-of-most-of-the-augustine-commission.html

Personally, I think this looks pretty good.  Especially with Mr. Bejmuk from his days at Boeing Orbiter. 

[yg1968]

An executive of Boeing and a former executive of Lockheed and a member from Aerospace which came out almost supporting EELV in their report. How independent will this panel be?

[Namechange User]

An executive of Boeing and a former executive of Lockheed and a member of Aerospace which came out almost supporting EELV in their report. How independent will this panel be?

What do you expect?  The well is only so deep and these people have to be qualified to sit on the panel, so chances are that some will have crossed paths with NASA in some way before. 

If anything, I would think that those that support the status quo should be nearvous. 

[Danny Dot]

An executive of Boeing and a former executive of Lockheed and a member of Aerospace which came out almost supporting EELV in their report. How independent will this panel be?

I think EELVs are well covered.  How about Direct?  This should be very interesting to watch.

Danny Deger

[Chris Bergin]

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.

[jongoff]

An executive of Boeing and a former executive of Lockheed and a member from Aerospace which came out almost supporting EELV in their report. How independent will this panel be?

It also has New Space guys, a shuttle astronaut, and several academics.  If by "independent" you mean "will support the status quo", I can see why you would be worried.  But if by "independent" you mean, "will provide solid technical advice about what actually provides the best value to the American people (instead of just a few Senators)", then I think there's a good chance you won't be disappointed.

~Jon

[yg1968]

It's not so much that I want the status quo but I am worried about the cascading effects of each decision: cancelling Ares I may get Ares V cancelled, etc.

I could live with what Chris outlined except that I would want a lunar outpost even if it means postponing Mars for a few years. 

The idea of never having a lunar outpost worries me a lot more than anything else. What's the point of keeping ISS if we don't use what we have learned with ISS on the moon.  Besides going to Mars is only interesting if we have a Mars outpost. Hopefully, Sally Ride will promote a lunar outpost as she did in 1987:

http://history.nasa.gov/riderep/begin.htm

[brihath]

I will be very interested to hear how they plan to approach the assignment, and what their charter and the scope will be.  The team makeup alone only tells part of the story.  What investigation methods will they follow and how much support will they get?  That question is key.

[Lee Jay]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy

"This is sometimes called the sunk cost fallacy. Economists would label this behavior "irrational": It is inefficient because it misallocates resources by depending on information that is irrelevant to the decision being made. Colloquially, this is known as "throwing good money after bad"."

In other words, that which has already been invested in Ares is completely irrelevant to a rational decision on how best to move forward, and the commission should give it no weight whatsoever.

[wannamoonbase]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy

"This is sometimes called the sunk cost fallacy. Economists would label this behavior "irrational": It is inefficient because it misallocates resources by depending on information that is irrelevant to the decision being made. Colloquially, this is known as "throwing good money after bad"."

In other words, that which has already been invested in Ares is completely irrelevant to a rational decision on how best to move forward, and the commission should give it no weight whatsoever.

I totally agree with this point.  Throwing good money after bad is almost always the wrong path.  Sadly in politics it happens to often.

I fear that Chris' post above highlights the safest and maybe most likely path.  The Obama administration has not shown much interest in NASA so far so I could see them just letting the course play out. 

However, if they do have the marbles to make a course change and the Commission evaluates 'true' life cycle costs  I think the results could be very interesting.  Whatever system flies it has to be modular and require much less man power than STS. 

[Jim]

An executive of Boeing and a former executive of Lockheed and a member from Aerospace which came out almost supporting EELV in their report. How independent will this panel be?

Yes, it is very slanted to the current architecture.  Boeing has the Ares I upperstage and LM building Orion. 

ULA has no representative, and hence has nobody in their court.

But then again, if you think it is slanted to EELV's, then that is good, because it will save NASA from itself.  The current architecture is unsustainable and will ruin NASA.

And how many times do I have to say it, Boeing and LM are no longer EELV.

[dnavas]

why ... wasn't it killed a year or more ago when the troubles really started.

Well, if they are looking for a reason, look no further than gov't receipts and planned expenditures.  April tax receipts are down 35% (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/101xx/doc10114/05-2009-MBR.htm).  At the same time we are planning vast new programs involving a lot of spending. I don't want to get derailed on relative goodness or badness, I am only saying that, when push comes to shove, and income != expenses, NASA isn't going to be the last place they look to cut.  If you want the program to survive at all, you need something vastly cheaper.

There are things that have changed since last year....

-Dave

[DigitalMan]

They've ordered a major review.  What evidence do you have that Obama has not shown much interest?

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy

"This is sometimes called the sunk cost fallacy. Economists would label this behavior "irrational": It is inefficient because it misallocates resources by depending on information that is irrelevant to the decision being made. Colloquially, this is known as "throwing good money after bad"."

In other words, that which has already been invested in Ares is completely irrelevant to a rational decision on how best to move forward, and the commission should give it no weight whatsoever.

I totally agree with this point.  Throwing good money after bad is almost always the wrong path.  Sadly in politics it happens to often.

I fear that Chris' post above highlights the safest and maybe most likely path.  The Obama administration has not shown much interest in NASA so far so I could see them just letting the course play out. 

However, if they do have the marbles to make a course change and the Commission evaluates 'true' life cycle costs  I think the results could be very interesting.  Whatever system flies it has to be modular and require much less man power than STS. 

[Jim]

It's not so much that I want the status quo but I am worried about the cascading effects of each decision: cancelling Ares I may get Ares V cancelled, etc.

That is false logic.  Ares V does not have to be tied to Ares I.

I am a supporting of a lunar outpost but not using the current architecture.  I am willing to delay the outpost if it means getting rid of Ares I.    Ares I would actually delay the outpost even more.

It is stupid to support Ares I just because of the lunar outpost.
The end does not justify the means.

[wannamoonbase]

They've ordered a major review.  What evidence do you have that Obama has not shown much interest?

4 Months to name an administrator, who was listed as a serious option 3 months ago and disgaurded and the official announced comes out on a long weekend in a printed statement.  Not exactly a red carpet roll out.  I think he likes space and might even be interested in it. 

But considering the turmoil it's completely acceptable that it's way down on the administrations list.

Edit: This commission will give him cover to either stay the course or adopt one of several options and he could use safety, cost or schedule to justify which ever option he decides.

[mmeijeri]

Defer Lunar to 2022 ish (eek, I know).

Why do you say eek to that? More people on this forum have expressed strong emotions against postponing the lunar phase. Why is that such a bad thing, provided a NEO mission comes first? What if the US cannot afford the moon for now?

[Chris Bergin]

Defer Lunar to 2022 ish (eek, I know).

Why do you say eek to that?

Because I feel Shuttle to ISS is more exciting than Orion to to ISS, but Orion to the moon is more exciting than Shuttle to the ISS. Delaying the latter results in an "eek" from yours truely

[robertross]

Defer Lunar to 2022 ish (eek, I know).

Why do you say eek to that? More people on this forum have expressed strong emotions against postponing the lunar phase. Why is that such a bad thing, provided a NEO mission comes first? What if the US cannot afford the moon for now?

The fear is that the further out it is, the more apt it is to being deferred even longer, perhaps never happening at all.

I personally think that 'NASA' can't afford to do it the way they are currently doing things, and the same could be said for the government...but that's another topic.

We just need this group to weight the options objectively and present the best option(s). Hopefully the WH can make the best choice and Congress funds it.

[robertross]

Because I feel Shuttle to ISS is more exciting than Orion to to ISS, but Orion to the moon is more exciting than Shuttle to the ISS. Delaying the latter results in an "eek" from yours truely

Well there's that too...lol

We all love to dream. We all have our favourites.

[mmeijeri]

Ah, those reasons make sense. Personally, being a space station and depot guy, my reaction to NEO first, moon postponed and Ares cancelled would be 'phew', not 'eek'. Throw in depots and I'll make it a 'yay!'