Augustine Commission Members Announced

[nooneofconsequence]

At the end of OSP the LSP (part of NASA) concluded they were not needed

Commission folks reading this thread (on topic, see ) need to request the Bullman study (MSFC) and the response to the Bullman study (not MSFC, ahem).  The latter exists only in draft because some managers are... yella, to put it in G-rated terms.  They both contain proprietary data and would be useless under a FOIA.

If you can quote the document number and number of pages then always do. Sometimes however they are also themselves restricted.

[robertross]

If you can quote the document number and number of pages then always do. Sometimes however they are also themselves restricted.

"OSP-ELV Human Flight Safety Certification Study report", dated March 2004. The soft copy I'm looking at has no document number, curiously.

The response document, "Collaborative ELV Response to the HFSCS Report", exists in draft form only and thus has no document number assigned to it.

I have heard that the response document did find its way to the transition team, but I nothing more than that.

You make it sound like an L2 request...   

[nooneofconsequence]

Some may find this hard to believe ... but sometimes the document number for a document is secured more than the document itself.

[Danny Dot]

Some more observations about the commission's charter:

No mention is made of

- the urgency of closing the gap
- the need to preserve the shuttle stack
- 'preserving the unique skill and experience base of the existing workforce'

There is a strong statement that translates to closing the gap.

Danny Deger

[Blackstar]

Tell us more about Mr. Whitesides.  I already like him.  I do hope Hawes gets severly repermanded in attempting to quash any dissenting opinion.  This is the heart of the NASA culture that killed 14 astronauts.  Let's see if NASA can grow out of this problem with its culture.

Danny Deger

Maybe before you go down the path of calling for people to be reprimanded you can ask the previous poster to provide some evidence that what he says is actually true.  Or just skip all that and burn the witches?

[robertross]

You make it sound like an L2 request...   

It's an ITAR-controlled document, so I wouldn't expect to see it show up anywhere on the web.

Awwwwwww 

Oh well, doesn't hurt to try 

[mars.is.wet]

Tell us more about Mr. Whitesides.  I already like him.  I do hope Hawes gets severly repermanded in attempting to quash any dissenting opinion.  This is the heart of the NASA culture that killed 14 astronauts.  Let's see if NASA can grow out of this problem with its culture.

Danny Deger

Maybe before you go down the path of calling for people to be reprimanded you can ask the previous poster to provide some evidence that what he says is actually true.  Or just skip all that and burn the witches?

I second the call! Burn the witches!  Use them as rocket propellant and burn them!

(wait, don't I know him?)

Nevermind ...

[robertross]

Some may find this hard to believe ... but sometimes the document number for a document is secured more than the document itself.

I believe it. It's easy to censor a title, but leaking content that nobody recognizes at first (or ever) is easy.

At least this report is supposed to be public.

[mmeijeri]

There is a strong statement that translates to closing the gap.

Do you mean expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS)? I agree that calls for at least shortening the gap. There's something in the transcript of the teleconference that relates to this. Augustine was asked about the gap and specifically if changing horses now would extend the gap:

I must confess as an individual, that I speak as a private citizen, I am not thrilled with the fact that we have a gap, but we have what we have, and that is a question of how we wish to deal with that. There are things that could be done probably that would shorten the gap. There are some things that one might do that would probably lengthen the gap, but, certainly, an objective, I think, of anybody would be to balance the various pros and cons of whatever is proposed, I guess the impact on the gap, among other things, and recognizing that extending the gap is probably not a desirable thing. On the other hand -- and I am not making predictions here because I don't know the outcome, but it is not something that is written in stone either.

It looks as if he is not interpreting the 'expediting' bit as meaning closing or even reducing the gap is an all-overriding concern. It appears to be just one of several important concerns.

[loomy]

Is there a lack of shuttle talk?  I hear it is expensive to run and might get more expensive, but I thought the reason for killing it early was safety concerns.  Scott Altman talked VERY pro-shuttle last mission, so I took that to mean my safety concerns were overblown, and it was back to money as concern #1.

For this reason I infer based on Augustine's last response that he is personally not motivated to run the shuttle longer to close the gap, even if it is safer.

I wonder if people in washington and beyond feel like there is no rush to spend NASA money in the next couple years because of the national economic situation.  No remorse for a 5 year NASA slumber, I suspect.  Not a pressing matter perhaps.

[clongton]

Tell us more about Mr. Whitesides.  I already like him.  I do hope Hawes gets severly repermanded in attempting to quash any dissenting opinion.  This is the heart of the NASA culture that killed 14 astronauts.  Let's see if NASA can grow out of this problem with its culture.

Danny Deger

Maybe before you go down the path of calling for people to be reprimanded you can ask the previous poster to provide some evidence that what he says is actually true.  Or just skip all that and burn the witches?

None of us, if we think about this, should be quick to jump to conclusions about anybody just yet.  All in all, I think the panel is well staffed. It is a fact of life that we all must accept that everybody will have some bias in some form or another. That is human nature and not avoidable. So *NONE* of us should be quick to throw stones because we all have them. The question is not do they have biases, but are they willing to do their work transparently and be open to other approaches and or ideas? Are they willing to honestly entertain something that they are not predisposed to for the sake of completeness? Only time will tell us that, so let us watch to see how these people, fine people every one, actually conduct themselves as they go about their assigned tasks.

Please, everyone; do not judge the motives or intentions of anyone on this panel, *especially* before the fact. Let's send them all off with more well wishes than they could ever hope to count. Their task is not an enviable one. They will need to know that they have our goodwill at their back. Their job is hard, and they CANNOT please everyone. Choices will be made, and there will be those who prevail and those who do not. That's just how it is. Let's give these people a chance and plenty of breathing room to do their job.

[robertross]

Is there a lack of shuttle talk?  I hear it is expensive to run and might get more expensive, but I thought the reason for killing it early was safety concerns.  Scott Altman talked VERY pro-shuttle last mission, so I took that to mean my safety concerns were overblown, and it was back to money as concern #1.

For this reason I infer based on Augustine's last response that he is personally not motivated to run the shuttle longer to close the gap, even if it is safer.

I wonder if people in washington and beyond feel like there is no rush to spend NASA money in the next couple years because of the national economic situation.  No remorse for a 5 year NASA slumber, I suspect.  Not a pressing matter perhaps.

The Augustine Commission's scope is looking at the selection of a future transportation system. Others, and ultimately Congress will decide on what to do about shuttle. They are interlinked, but not at this level. Besides, they have enough on their plate without worrying about how shuttle fits in. To me, that choice is as plain as day.

[gladiator1332]

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.

Big Ares fan I'm told.

He currently leads a group of analysts who last saw action helping put the ESAS Report together. Just how likely are they to ever admit they were wrong four years ago?

The rumor at HQ is that Hawes has already tried to block any non-Contractors from providing official testimony information to the panel. Apparently George Whitesides went ballistic when he heard that someone was trying to prevent any relevant information from being submitted to the Commission. GW has the ear of the President, so Hawes will not be getting his way. If this rumor is true he should consider himself very luck if he continues to draw a salary after this. He should probably recuse himself from further participation and if he doesn't Norm needs to drop-kick his butt.

The game is afoot.

If true, I think it is disgusting that someone in his position would continue to try to mislead the American taxpayers and still push a system that just doesn't add up.

I hope Augustine is prepared to watch out for further attempts at using misleading information or blocking the process of reviewing all options.

[nooneofconsequence]

If true, I think it is disgusting that someone in his position would continue to try to mislead the American taxpayers and still push a system that just doesn't add up.

I hope Augustine is prepared to watch out for further attempts at using misleading information or blocking the process of reviewing all options.

Suggest politely that you get by disgust. We've got a polarized society that's so torqued off they can't see straight enough to understand when even they are screwing themselves in the process.

That's why transparency is what well all have to be about. Because then things become obvious, and such manipulations fruitless.

The problem fixes itself.

[Antares]

Some may find this hard to believe ... but sometimes the document number for a document is secured more than the document itself.

It's 42, seriously.  ELV-OSP-042.  Mr. Hawes' new friend has read it.

[veryrelaxed]

Personally, (ok, you can crucify me for this) 'the gap' is a gimmik.  We had a gap before the Apollo, and before the STS.  Sure, develop our own capabipility, with break-a-leg space enterps, but how do we access the ISS as it stands now?  Buy the futures?

[veryrelaxed]

I get confused: 

1. "government get out of the way"
2."please buy our future flights to the only market -- the ISS, which is built and maintained via the taxpayers' wallet"

This sentiment comes from same people.

[savuporo]

The Augustine Commission's scope is looking at the selection of a future transportation system.

Um, i sure hope thats not their scope. As long as we keep thinking in the terms of The Space Transportation system ( supposedly built and operated by NASA ) we arent going anywhere fast.
Im reading the charter and it doesnt seem to say "pick a launcher/spacecraft design" anywhere.
It speaks about continuation of U.S human spaceflight after Shuttle retires. Well, SpaceShipOne would provide US with human spaceflight capability. It mentions "a new U.S. capability to support utilization of ISS" meaning that something new would have to be flown by somebody, but even COTS cargo flights would fit that description.

[Danny Dot]

Could someone compare and contrast the differences and similarities of the ESAS and the Augustine 2.0 charters? (other than the 90 (120?) day time frame)

From what I've read so far it appears that the Augustine commission is not ESAS v2.0 but more of a top level review.

What is the historical performance of Augustine 2.0 type reviews? Do they get implemented or are they more of a dog and pony show?

I think the big difference is going to the moon was assumed going into ESAS.  Augustine may look at other missions beyond LEO.

NASA's human rating requirements are different and EELVs meet them with MUCH fewer mods.

The gap is much closer and bigger also.

From a technical stand point, NASA now knows air starting an SSME is very difficult and thrust oscillation is a BIG problem for a stick.

I think this review will have an impact, if not by NASA management, by the president.

Danny Deger

[Danny Dot]

Tell us more about Mr. Whitesides.  I already like him.  I do hope Hawes gets severely reprimanded in attempting to quash any dissenting opinion.  This is the heart of the NASA culture that killed 14 astronauts.  Let's see if NASA can grow out of this problem with its culture.

Danny Deger

Maybe before you go down the path of calling for people to be reprimanded you can ask the previous poster to provide some evidence that what he says is actually true.  Or just skip all that and burn the witches?

I second the call! Burn the witches!  Use them as rocket propellant and burn them!

(wait, don't I know him?)

Nevermind ...

He would probably make lousy rocket propellant anyway -- to much water. 

I think removing him from the lead of Augustine analysis support and a verbal reprimand would suffice.   This is of course assuming he IS guilty of attempting to stack the deck like it appears he did during ESAS. 

Can anyone confirm he led the analysis team that supported ESAS?  If he did, he should be removed from a simple conflict of interest point of view.  Anyone in that position would be opposed to a finding his previous analysis had even the tiniest flaw.  This has nothing to do with conspiracy theory.  This is very simple human nature.

Danny Deger