Mars,I completely agree with you that the goals set out by ESAS are no longer affordable with the current 2-launch vehicle architecture plans.However, if you removed all of the costs for a second, even larger, launch vehicle you would 'instantly' save roughly $15 billion in development money alone, plus save another billion each year in fixed operational costs as well. That adds up to a very significant proportion of the costs.To imply that no solutions are affordable just because Ares' costs are now too high is quite a leap to be making.DIRECT, for one, *can* afford a robust Lunar program which meets all of the original ESAS goals, within that $7bn/year cost target you suggest.Ross.
Quote from: kraisee on 06/01/2009 05:20 pmMars,I completely agree with you that the goals set out by ESAS are no longer affordable with the current 2-launch vehicle architecture plans.However, if you removed all of the costs for a second, even larger, launch vehicle you would 'instantly' save roughly $15 billion in development money alone, plus save another billion each year in fixed operational costs as well. That adds up to a very significant proportion of the costs.To imply that no solutions are affordable just because Ares' costs are now too high is quite a leap to be making.DIRECT, for one, *can* afford a robust Lunar program which meets all of the original ESAS goals, within that $7bn/year cost target you suggest.Ross.I would love to see sufficient costing detail on DIRECT that I could believe, but I have not. As you know, I do not believe the schedules I have seen, and that additional schedule will add significant additional costs. In addition, claims such as that the RL-10 could be used off the shelf continue to erode my confidence in the cost estimates I have not seen.
I think you've already made up your mind, and there's not a lot I can do in that situation, but I'll still keep on trying Regarding the RL-10, it would be completely 'off the shelf', because as part of the DIRECT plan, we intend to fund the human-rating of the Delta-IV Heavy to become operational somewhere around 2014. The RL-10B-2 would be human-rated as part of that effort and would then be "off the shelf" for use on the J-246 Upper Stage around 2017.Ross.
Regarding the RL-10, it would be completely 'off the shelf', because as part of the DIRECT plan, we intend to fund the human-rating of the Delta-IV Heavy to become operational somewhere around 2014. The RL-10B-2 would be human-rated as part of that effort and would then be an "off the shelf" unit ready for use on the J-246 Upper Stage around 2017.Ross.
Ok - we're going in multiple directions - time for some top-down.1) It takes political leadership to create/develop/engage political consensus. Example: Webb2) It takes "a money guy" to modulate the program(s) in order to survive Congress and the public. No successful administrator examples here - Webb just forced us to spend more.3) It takes a "rocket scientist" to have a rational/achievable plan that can survive execution, even with a few bumps along the road. No successful administrator here either.4) It takes timing to slot it in and keep a public interested not jaded.5) It takes a public communications effort by the administrator that engages 1-4 above to continually keep things from going off path.The trouble with this discussion, is like most good engineers, they get obsessed by a single point of failure. But with something of this size as a *human nature* run issue, ALL OF THESE ARE REQUIRED SIMULTAINEOUSLY FOR SUCCESS. AND YOU NEED LEADERSHIP THAT BINDS IT TOGETHER AS IT TENDS TO FRAGMENT.Griffin wasn't doomed by his clarity but by his 1)non-existent political skills, 2) mediocre money skills, 3) inability to understand technical delegation and oversight, 4) poor timing, and 5) no experience at leadership for something of this kind (very rare).He's a great consultant and an ok human being.Many of NASA's best were "political hacks". That's because it's the most important skill of the bunch, and they were terrified of being blamed, so they listened to people like Gilruth even when they didn't want to. Griffen didn't.Truly didn't listen to Bush I. And Bush I didn't really care, until he hand to. Stop looking at single issues here - look at all together.NASA always gets taken out by "single hit" kills. Wake up.
NASA ANNOUNCES MEMBERS OF HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT REVIEW COMMITTEE- Norman Augustine (chair)- Dr. Wanda Austin- Bohdan Bejmuk- Dr. Leroy Chiao- Dr. Christopher Chyba- Dr. Edward Crawley- Jeffrey Greason- Dr. Charles Kennel- Retired Air Force Gen. Lester Lyles- Dr. Sally Ride....
Quote from: jacqmans on 06/01/2009 05:48 pmNASA ANNOUNCES MEMBERS OF HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT REVIEW COMMITTEE- Norman Augustine (chair)- Dr. Wanda Austin- Bohdan Bejmuk- Dr. Leroy Chiao- Dr. Christopher Chyba- Dr. Edward Crawley- Jeffrey Greason- Dr. Charles Kennel- Retired Air Force Gen. Lester Lyles- Dr. Sally Ride....Note that no one in this list is a strong proponent of VSE. Nor is there anyone from Apollo. To me that is the single biggest missing item.
Good post, the "no political skills" part is suspect. Members of Congress LOVED Griffin, as did much of the media. While "geekishly shiek" may not be a skill, it worked for him, and his "trust me" got him out of more than one political pickle.
I may be wrong in the end, but this seems like a good mix of people.
But none of them have a lick of experience outside of LEO w/manned space.And supposedly what they're reviewing has a large component designed with that in mind.
Dr. W. Michael Hawes is leading the NASA review team that will provide technical and analytic support to the committee. Hawes is NASA's associate administrator for program analysis and evaluation.
QuoteDr. W. Michael Hawes is leading the NASA review team that will provide technical and analytic support to the committee. Hawes is NASA's associate administrator for program analysis and evaluation.Big Ares fan I'm told.
We all know that after their recommendations come out and are implemented that cries of "foul" and "bias" will be shortly forthcoming, whether it be Austin/Augustine EELV or too much COTS or nobody for DIRECT or Shuttle or something else.But I guess that is the parlor game people enjoy.
Those that don't understand the value/need for leadership might see criticism as a form of "circular firing squad".They also think that a bully is an example of a strong leader. Quite the opposite.
