Author Topic: Augustine Commission Members Announced  (Read 104506 times)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #80 on: 05/30/2009 12:24 am »

Also thanks to Dana Rohrabacher. He supports that language and demands that planetary defense (Armageddon !) be considered first.


Sounds like the NEO mission will have to call itself a planetary defense reconnaissance exorcize.

The long range life support and navigation hardware developed for the NEO mission can hopefully be used on other missions.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 824
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #81 on: 05/30/2009 01:05 am »
My best estimate is if we stay the current course and keep the Obama budget cuts (no growth in NASA budget), we could do Moon 2024.  Or NEO 2021 and Moon 2026.

And what if a switch was made to DIRECT or EELV or some compromise?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15582
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8959
  • Likes Given: 1405
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #82 on: 05/30/2009 01:12 am »
But, since I don't have a PhD, no one on the commission would listen to me!  I would end up watching the inevitable:  Atlas V launching two Orions to ISS every year, year after year, while NASA begged for lunar mission funding.

Ph.D.s are overrated.

I was riding in a cab once, and - I'm not making this up -  telling the cab driver about my upcoming finals, that I was working on a Masters and thinking about a PhD, when he got all excited and said that I should definitely go for it.  His PhD, he said, had changed his life!

 - Ed Kyle

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17943
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 7925
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #83 on: 05/30/2009 01:15 am »
But, since I don't have a PhD, no one on the commission would listen to me!  I would end up watching the inevitable:  Atlas V launching two Orions to ISS every year, year after year, while NASA begged for lunar mission funding.

Ph.D.s are overrated.

I agree. Many people I knew going through university at the same time as me had not found work, whereas I, who went through 3 years college for a technologists' diploma, have never been without work.

Theory is fine and dandy, but the ones in the trenches are the ones who are always relied upon to get the final job done.

Back OT...

Geez, all I had to do is ask about Mars and look what I started...lol.  ;)

I don't put much stock into it. I know they forbid NASA from looking into it at this time. That to me is another shame, because you can work on developing emerging technologies that would be required for Mars & beyond (even the moon). These things don't happen overnight. The panel (or whomever) may want to consider that if we ever want to go far in our attempts at manned space exploration.

For me, astronauts fit that bill very well. I don't know about the other aspects...I'm still a little leary or the panelists announced so far, so I have been bitting my tongue so far.

I just want fairness and objectivity. Maybe too much to ask for.

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #84 on: 05/30/2009 01:17 am »
My best estimate is if we stay the current course and keep the Obama budget cuts (no growth in NASA budget), we could do Moon 2024.  Or NEO 2021 and Moon 2026.

And what if a switch was made to DIRECT or EELV or some compromise?

EELV won't be much better b/c the Ares V / Altair costs don't go down.

I don't believe the limited cost estimates or aggressive schedules we've seen for DIRECT, but it is possible the lunar/NEO dates could be moved to the left.  Problem is that normal schedules would add huge costs, but it is still possible.

*this is simply my opinion and is not meant as a flame*

If my estimate is right, we are further from the Moon today than we were when we started the VSE.  Never a good sign.

« Last Edit: 05/30/2009 01:29 am by mars.is.wet »

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 824
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #85 on: 05/30/2009 01:29 am »
EELV won't be much better b/c the Ares V / Altair costs don't go down.

I was imagining Atlas Phase 1 or J-130 + commercial upper stage instead of Ares V. No standing army in case of all EELV. No J-2X, no 5 seg boosters, no new upper stage. Simplified single stage hypergolic Altair. No deeply throttleable cryogenic engine, none of the complexities and risks of landing, no lunar dust issues. No fancy composites, just existing technology. Extra factors of safety for lower risk and lower development cost. Make up for increased mass with extra propellant. No suitports, no rovers, no surface hab.

Quote
*this is simply my opinion and is not meant as a flame*

Just interested in your opinion.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #86 on: 05/30/2009 01:35 am »
EELV won't be much better b/c the Ares V / Altair costs don't go down.

I was imagining Atlas Phase 1 or J-130 + commercial upper stage instead of Ares V. No standing army in case of all EELV. No J-2X, no 5 seg boosters, no new upper stage. Simplified single stage hypergolic Altair. No deeply throttleable cryogenic engine, none of the complexities and risks of landing, no lunar dust issues. No fancy composites, just existing technology. Extra factors of safety for lower risk and lower development cost. Make up for increased mass with extra propellant. No suitports, no rovers, no surface hab.

Given your caveats above, yes, if you significantly reduce the requirements (Apollo with anemia?), you can get there sooner.

I haven't run the numbers for those, but would very much like to.  Perhaps there is an august group I can support ... :)


Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 824
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #87 on: 05/30/2009 01:43 am »
Given your caveats above, yes, if you significantly reduce the requirements (Apollo with anemia?), you can get there sooner.

It's incrementalism, Apollo with anemia might be a good name if you intended to stop there. But why do that? A NEO mission before 2020 is better than having your space program cancelled in 2020 because you aimed for the moon and couldn't deliver. All the nice bits you had to cut out can be added back later once there is money for it.

Quote
I haven't run the numbers for those, but would very much like to.  Perhaps there is an august group I can support ... :)

Wouldn't that be nice ;) Go for it!
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Marsman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • U.S.
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #88 on: 05/30/2009 01:47 am »
EELV won't be much better b/c the Ares V / Altair costs don't go down.

I was imagining Atlas Phase 1 or J-130 + commercial upper stage instead of Ares V. No standing army in case of all EELV. No J-2X, no 5 seg boosters, no new upper stage. Simplified single stage hypergolic Altair. No deeply throttleable cryogenic engine, none of the complexities and risks of landing, no lunar dust issues. No fancy composites, just existing technology. Extra factors of safety for lower risk and lower development cost. Make up for increased mass with extra propellant. No suitports, no rovers, no surface hab.

Quote
*this is simply my opinion and is not meant as a flame*

Just interested in your opinion.

To be precise, Ares I is expected to cost $14.4 billion according to the 2007 GAO report- and that was 2 years ago! Ares I is projected to become operational in early 2017 as of the latest info that I hear.

Manrating Atlas V or Delta IV will cost no more than $3 billion, including infrastructure. So going with an EELV is already saving you >$11 billion right off the bat. I'd call that an improvement, even though the Altair/Ares V costs don't go down as you pointed out.

Ares V is a WAG right now, and the final cost/budget will depend on the configuration chosen. But expect something in the $15 to 25 billion range, and making its first flight in 2020 (in the best case scenario).

The advantage that DIRECT has is that the first rocket that you build gets you anywhere you want, even if congress doesn't approve the Jupiter 246 configuration. You can still do exploration with Jupiter 130+DHCUS (including NEO missions), even if it isn't a full up ESAS lunar mission.

BTW, for comparison, the Jupiter 130 is an $8 billion project for a 60-70mT launcher. Congress would have to be crazy not to authorize the Jupiter 246 configuration though, as it would only be a $2-3 billion effort at worst. And then you can get the full up ESAS lunar missions by 2018, and whatever else that you want.


Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #89 on: 05/30/2009 01:49 am »

It's incrementalism, Apollo with anemia might be a good name if you intended to stop there. But why do that? A NEO mission before 2020 is better than having your space program cancelled in 2020 because you aimed for the moon and couldn't deliver. All the nice bits you had to cut out can be added back later once there is money for it.


Problem is, it doesn't work that way.  Much like the Shuttle program, once you start operating your system the development dollars dry up (if you can call a few billion a year drying up).  At that rate, your development is so slow you can't get to the next "increment".

It is the very real reason that Griffin chose the increment he did.  Less and he would not have kept congressional funding or WH interest.  More and he couldn't afford it (based on his estimates, which were low but also assumed that NASA's budget would suffer the budget hits it has including Katrina, "reprioritization", and reduced inflationary growth ... not to mention the Obama cuts of late).

Griffin was fully aware that to build an outpost or go to Mars that a plus up would be required, and he wanted to have the LV ready to do so.  He was trying to rebuild NASA and change the skill set/culture (something that didn't happen) and then use the lunar missions to prove the corner had been turned.  May have been flawed in hindsight, but it was an incremental strategy.

Again, more incremental strategy would have been a non-starter for President Bush, and likely the Congress.  (based on conversations I've had with principals)

« Last Edit: 05/30/2009 01:50 am by mars.is.wet »

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #90 on: 05/30/2009 01:52 am »

BTW, for comparison, the Jupiter 130 is an $8 billion project for a 60-70mT launcher. Congress would have to be crazy not to authorize the Jupiter 246 configuration though, as it would only be a $2-3 billion effort at worst. And then you can get the full up ESAS lunar missions by 2018, and whatever else that you want.

Based on estimating lots of costs (including Cx) and STS, these numbers are too low, and the schedule is too aggressive.  Again, I wouldn't mind a chance to actually run them apples-to-apples though.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 824
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #91 on: 05/30/2009 02:05 am »
Problem is, it doesn't work that way.  Much like the Shuttle program, once you start operating your system the development dollars dry up (if you can call a few billion a year drying up).  At that rate, your development is so slow you can't get to the next "increment".

Isn't the trick just to have very small increments? That's how it works with software.

Quote
It is the very real reason that Griffin chose the increment he did.  Less and he would not have kept congressional funding or WH interest. 

snip

Again, more incremental strategy would have been a non-starter for President Bush, and likely the Congress.  (based on conversations I've had with principals)

Can you say more about this? I had thought the problem was a NASA mindset that was still stuck in the golden age of Apollo. You seem to be saying the politicians are the problem. Why would they be opposed to incrementalism?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #92 on: 05/30/2009 02:25 am »

Isn't the trick just to have very small increments? That's how it works with software.

Yes, but with software, you can build on what you have with a high degree of re-use.

It is sort of like building an air transport system for a few DC-9s and then incrementally trying to improve the runways, air traffic control software, structures, food services, media services for a 787.  It doesn't work without huge upgrade costs.

Quote
It is the very real reason that Griffin chose the increment he did.  Less and he would not have kept congressional funding or WH interest. 

snip

Again, more incremental strategy would have been a non-starter for President Bush, and likely the Congress.  (based on conversations I've had with principals)
Quote
Can you say more about this? I had thought the problem was a NASA mindset that was still stuck in the golden age of Apollo. You seem to be saying the politicians are the problem. Why would they be opposed to incrementalism?

Not much more, but I can show you the reaction by the press (which reflects the popular political mindset at the time).  SEI was an increment too large (it too had sub increments), and VSE was seen as too small (or totally irrelevant) at the time.  The term "Apollo on steroids" was meant as an increment that can be accomplished by Griffin, but seen as short sighted and derogatory by many decision makers.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/502/1

The other thing that I can offer is that politicians think in cycles.  What can I accomplish in this budget?  What can I accomplish before my next election?  What can I accomplish before I run for Senate (or the Whitehouse)?  That is why 20-year and 30-year plans to accomplish something "big" are unpopular, both human lifespans and political terms work against it.  Can you think of anything else that we do that has a 20-year vision?   Apollo was thought of and done in less than 10.  Hydroelectric dams is all I can think of, and we don't build those anymore.

People think of this as "wrong" or "shortsighted" but many of us live our lives the same way.  Paycheck to paycheck ... jobs last years not decades ... and houses aren't long-term homes for many of us.  It has also allowed us to accomplish some remarkable things.

Unfortunately, space exploration doesn't lend itself to a "what have you found for me lately" attitude.
« Last Edit: 05/30/2009 02:26 am by mars.is.wet »

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 824
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #93 on: 05/30/2009 03:16 am »
Yes, but with software, you can build on what you have with a high degree of re-use.

True. But a design is a lot like software and you should have a lot of reuse there. And if the hardware is expendable as it is with Constellation, you have to build new vehicles anyway.

Quote
It is sort of like building an air transport system for a few DC-9s and then incrementally trying to improve the runways, air traffic control software, structures, food services, media services for a 787.  It doesn't work without huge upgrade costs.

Then again, isn't that how it happened historically? As they say, every successful complex system evolved from a simpler successful system.

Quote
SEI was an increment too large (it too had sub increments), and VSE was seen as too small (or totally irrelevant) at the time.

Do you know of a good overview of SEI and its subincrements? I was under the impression it was a huge monolithic plan, like OASIS. Now I happen to like OASIS, but it only provides a picture of where we want to end up, and no way to get there. If it were incremental it would have one to two year milestones that show real progress and immediate applications.

Quote
  The term "Apollo on steroids" was meant as an increment that can be accomplished by Griffin, but seen as short sighted and derogatory by many decision makers.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/502/1

I see what you mean.

Quote
The other thing that I can offer is that politicians think in cycles.  What can I accomplish in this budget?  What can I accomplish before my next election?  What can I accomplish before I run for Senate (or the Whitehouse)? 

That should work perfectly with incrementalism.

Quote
That is why 20-year and 30-year plans to accomplish something "big" are unpopular, both human lifespans and political terms work against it.  Can you think of anything else that we do that has a 20-year vision?   Apollo was thought of and done in less than 10.  Hydroelectric dams is all I can think of, and we don't build those anymore.

Let me offer a different way of looking at it. Congress has been remarkably stable in its willingness to fund NASA at current levels and remarkably unwilling to return to Apollo-sized budgets. NASA doesn't need an enormous plan to get its funding, nor would it help because it's not going to get a huge budget increase anyway.

From your words I gather Griffin deliberately chose an architecture that was a lot simpler than OASIS or SEI, not because he would not have wanted OASIS or SEI, but because he thought there was no chance Congress would go for it. Arguably, that shows judgement on his part. But he failed to develop a plan with minimal steps and immediate payoff. Sure, doing Ares I as a precursor to Ares V was an incremental step, but it was too large a step and too useless a step, given that EELVs are capable of lifting Orion to the ISS and given that NASA has no recent experience building launchers. I say it is the near-term payoff that is missing.

Quote
People think of this as "wrong" or "shortsighted" but many of us live our lives the same way.  Paycheck to paycheck ... jobs last years not decades ... and houses aren't long-term homes for many of us.  It has also allowed us to accomplish some remarkable things.

'We are going to the Moon in ten years' isn't exciting anymore. 'We are going to Mars in ten years' would be exciting. 'We are going to the moon on Tuesday' would also be exciting, even today. I say what we need are both a long term exciting vision (why not SEI) and short-term exciting intermediate results. I believe this is possible.
« Last Edit: 05/30/2009 03:19 am by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #94 on: 05/30/2009 03:19 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/

There is a huge difference between technical, safety-of-flight dissent and CxP architecture, threatening-jobs dissent.  The former is coddled while the latter is fatal.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #95 on: 05/30/2009 03:32 am »
To be precise, Ares I is expected to cost $14.4 billion according to the 2007 GAO report- and that was 2 years ago! Ares I is projected to become operational in early 2017 as of the latest info that I hear.

Manrating Atlas V or Delta IV will cost no more than $3 billion, including infrastructure. So going with an EELV is already saving you >$11 billion right off the bat. I'd call that an improvement, even though the Altair/Ares V costs don't go down as you pointed out.

Ares I was expected to cost $14.4B, though I heard numbers that put it at $20B, which given the technical problems and lack of progress in the last 2 years is a number I find credible.  However, something like $5B to $7B of that $14B to $20B has been spent already.  So, if your $3B to change EELV is right which it isn't, the savings is only  ::) $4B to $12B.  However, $3B is only credible if MSFC/JSC gold plate EELV which for the sake of EELV for all users must not happen.  The real number should be about $0.2B to add IVHM and nothing else.  The rest of the math is left as an exercise to the reader.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #96 on: 05/30/2009 04:22 am »
mmeijeri, good points.

The decision for Ares I was obviously a poor one.  He overestimated the skill of his design team, and underestimated the risks of incrementally changing the Shuttle derived elements.  While he did make the good decisions in the moment ... they are turning out poor in the longer term.  He was sure Ares I would be done by 2013.  He was sure we would be on the Moon by 2018.  He wanted a robust robotic program.

I have a chart (not with me) that shows NASA lost $11B in the first 3 years of the VSE, and lost $2B per year in the out years over what was assumed in ESAS.  Over the full 15 year sand chart, I think the loss (over ESAS assumptions) was on the order of $50B.  With those loses, what looked like doable increments became a bridge too far.  Again, 20-20 hindsight (and an inability of the executive branch to live up to its part of the bargain).

I'm not absolving him, his architecture needed to be resilient enough to handle those changes, which are part of the equation in any public project.  It has not been.

Btw, when NASA brought him the Moon, Bush wanted Mars in the architecture.  That required bigger increments such that it happened within his lifetime too ...

Offline Lab Lemming

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #97 on: 05/30/2009 06:33 am »

Isn't the trick just to have very small increments? That's how it works with software.

Yes, but with software, you can build on what you have with a high degree of re-use.

It is sort of like building an air transport system for a few DC-9s and then incrementally trying to improve the runways, air traffic control software, structures, food services, media services for a 787.  It doesn't work without huge upgrade costs.


Or like building a 737, and incrementally giving it better engines, more efficient wings, a stretched cabin, etc.
40 years later, it's still the world's most popular airplane.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7389
  • Liked: 2900
  • Likes Given: 1505
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #98 on: 05/30/2009 11:12 am »
I tried to attach a briefing of the NEO proposal, but it is 26 megs and got rejected.  You can find it yourself here....

I attach another one, a 2006 paper on Orion missions to asteroids using EELVs and enhancements thereof.  It suggests seven specific targets, with mission durations ranging from 54 to 123 days.

Quote
There is a 150-meter diameter NEO that rotates every 5 minutes!

At least there wouldn't be any loose debris to worry about!

In the past I've heard about investigations of NEO missions with Apollo hardware (not Apollo on steroids, but Apollo on asteroids).  This would not have been possible given, among other things, the limited delta-V available and the small number of asteroids known at the time, but it's still fascinating for its sheer audacity.  If anybody comes across anything written on this, please let me know.  I have the 1966 paper by Smith referenced in the presentation posted by Blackstar, but it doesn't count, because it's about a fly-by of (433) Eros using Apollo-derived hardware.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 824
Re: Augustine Commission Members Announced
« Reply #99 on: 05/30/2009 04:25 pm »
(not Apollo on steroids, but Apollo on asteroids).

Lol, good one!
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1