Augustine Commission Members Announced

[MKremer]

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.

I would agree with that. 

Real question is WHO will do the analysis?  While cost analysis is in the PA&E portfolio, very few civil servants at HQ are in a position to develop or provide technical analysis of the options.

Hopefully each committee member will have their own approved staff that they trust (whether colleagues, staff, or just knowledgable friends) helping them review the testimony and any data, studies, and proposals submitted. There's going to be a lot of information to go over in a limited period of time, and I'm all for them being given advise or recommendations along the lines of "This looks right" or "This part is total B.S.", and why.

[mars.is.wet]

Hopefully each committee member will have their own approved staff that they trust (whether colleagues, staff, or just knowledgable friends) helping them review the testimony and any data, studies, and proposals submitted. There's going to be a lot of information to go over in a limited period of time, and I'm all for them being given advise or recommendations along the lines of "This looks right" or "This part is total B.S.", and why.

Pretty sure that will NOT happen.  Anyone that advises the panel has to be a government employee or through an existing government contract ... and that takes contract work and vetting.  That is why the panel is delayed.

They can't just call on anyone ... for example, Dr. Crawley can't simply ask MIT because there is nobody to pay them ... and you don't know their conflicts of interest or biases. 

Not appropriate for a FACA panel to have outside analysis like that, no matter how "trusted".  Plus there is the matter of proprietary (Cx) data and other factors.

[nooneofconsequence]

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.

Agree.

But there is a difference between criticism and actively working to promote a vastly alternative path once a decision has been made to proceed.

I was commenting on Science blaming HSF for their cuts, and HSF "raiding" Science.  Aeronautics working the system for more budget to the detriment of exploration.  Science mission #1 bad mouthing (or could it be constructively criticising?) mission #2 to free up funding.

I'm all for dissent, but when the squad is charging over the hill, there can't be three people with different roadmaps telling them where to go (or stay).

I very much appreciate your perspective here. Unfortunately, the past decade has seen people enjoying the abuse of genuine criticism (whose point is to refine/sharpen) in order to "monkey wrench" an agenda (totally disingenuously)  and substitute a different one.

So I'm not surprised at your caution. Right now there are tons of divisive comments, and its easier to tear down than build up.

Unfortunately, either in short or long communications, its really hard to discern which it is. Perhaps this goes a long ways in explaining why its so hard to form consensus, and that when any occurs, its around unsubtle approaches that fail because they cannot accept refinement/criticism for fear of defocus/deception/redirection/extermination.

[mars.is.wet]

So I'm not surprised at your caution. Right now there are tons of divisive comments, and its easier to tear down than build up.

Unfortunately, either in short or long communications, its really hard to discern which it is. Perhaps this goes a long ways in explaining why its so hard to form consensus, and that when any occurs, its around unsubtle approaches that fail because they cannot accept refinement/criticism for fear of defocus/deception/redirection/extermination.

Great perspective.

That is also why I have been a supporter of Ares for so long, long after the technical data told me they were in trouble.  I know that alternative paths are fraught with different challenges, and that the grass truly is always greener.

Before Griffin, I was an EELV+HLV proponent, but once the Ares I decision was made, I snapped to and tried to make it the best solution it could be.  Better to follow the leader with the 80% solution than to sink in the mud searching for the "best" ... unf. with the observed technical difficulties, budget cuts and sniping that is going on Ares I/Orion can no longer be described as the 80% solution.

And worse than that, I attribute 75% of the problem to NASA's inability to execute rather than the programmatic path they chose.  And that means there isn't a clear way out of the woods.

I would love to get data suggesting that something like DIRECT was "better" by so much margin that it beat Ares/Orion hands down despite its head start.  But it would still need to be NASA (JSC/MSFC) that executed ... and in them I have little faith.

[mmeijeri]

Spiral development doesn't help when you have to develop a big delta in capability, like the first lunar lander or the first big booster.  This is a big development chunk that must be taken in one big step.  Spiral development is great for something like fielding a fighter that at first can't do air-to-ground then later adding air-to-ground capability.  For example you can't spiral develop from 50% access to the moon to 100% access, this is a complete redesign of everything.

Ah, that sounds like a worthy challenge! I come from software development where you can do pretty much anything through spiral development, and in much much smaller spirals than people tend to think. The other day in the Basic Rocket Science Q & A thread we had some discussion about to what degree this applies to rocket/spacecraft development:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13543.msg413641#msg413641

The discussion centered on how to do a lander incrementally. My current opinion is that it can be done, provided you are willing to take the scenic route. I am only an amateur of course.

[marsavian]

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.

How will EELV/DIRECT get a fair shake if that is the case ? We have already seen inaccurate, non-serious, to the point of comical, analyses of both these options from NASA so far.

[mars.is.wet]

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.

How will EELV/DIRECT get a fair shake if that is the case ? We have already seen inaccurate, non-serious, to the point of comical, analyses of both these options from NASA so far.

Let's say we knew - but could not prove - that they won't get a fair shake.  What could we do about it?

I would suggest we just wait for the outcome ... unless somebody wants to call for ANOTHER independent review before this one is even started. 

I hereby accuse ;-) ;-) Chris of throwing out red meat in order to bump up forum numbers. ;-) ;-)

More seriously, if ALL of NASA is corrupt, how can they be expected to do anything right?  We can't keep throwing out the baby (NASA) with the bathwater (past mistakes).

[Namechange User]

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.

How will EELV/DIRECT get a fair shake if that is the case ? We have already seen inaccurate, non-serious, to the point of comical, analyses of both these options from NASA so far.

In my opinion, the members are not overtly pro-Ares.  You can't be if you are to serve on a panel thats very purpose is to question the current implementation.  Obviously, the NASA support staff is going to be very pro-Ares.  However, I know one of the board members fairly well and am confident that person can detect B.S. when necessary. 

[TrueBlueWitt]

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.

How will EELV/DIRECT get a fair shake if that is the case ? We have already seen inaccurate, non-serious, to the point of comical, analyses of both these options from NASA so far.

Let's say we knew - but could not prove - that they won't get a fair shake.  What could we do about it?

I would suggest we just wait for the outcome ... unless somebody wants to call for ANOTHER independent review before this one is even started. 

I hereby accuse ;-) ;-) Chris of throwing out red meat in order to bump up forum numbers. ;-) ;-)

More seriously, if ALL of NASA is corrupt, how can they be expected to do anything right?  We can't keep throwing out the baby (NASA) with the bathwater (past mistakes).

Contract out all Launch services and vehicles, including Exploration?  Although NASA would still have to write requirements.. I see your point.. it's a downward SPIRAL.

[marsavian]

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.

How will EELV/DIRECT get a fair shake if that is the case ? We have already seen inaccurate, non-serious, to the point of comical, analyses of both these options from NASA so far.

Let's say we knew - but could not prove - that they won't get a fair shake.  What could we do about it?

I would suggest we just wait for the outcome ... unless somebody wants to call for ANOTHER independent review before this one is even started. 

I hereby accuse ;-) ;-) Chris of throwing out red meat in order to bump up forum numbers. ;-) ;-)

More seriously, if ALL of NASA is corrupt, how can they be expected to do anything right?  We can't keep throwing out the baby (NASA) with the bathwater (past mistakes).

Get the DoD to do the technical/analytic support or at least double-check.

[Chris Bergin]

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.

How will EELV/DIRECT get a fair shake if that is the case ? We have already seen inaccurate, non-serious, to the point of comical, analyses of both these options from NASA so far.

I'm told Mr Hawes will be providing that same NASA data, which is the only data the review will be using to work out if the alternatives are viable. NASA's data says Direct doesn't work and EELVs can't launch humans, but ironically elements of Ares don't even pass the requirements, but comes out as the best option.

I suppose it'll come down to the members of the review being wise to that and questioning the data and the negative findings.

In my opinion, the members are not overtly pro-Ares.  You can't be if you are to serve on a panel thats very purpose is to question the current implementation.  Obviously, the NASA support staff is going to be very pro-Ares.  However, I know one of the board members fairly well and am confident that person can detect B.S. when necessary. 

That makes things more hopeful for those wishing to see the alternatives get a fair shake.

[Antares]

We're getting closer and closer to the point where it IS time to massively rescope NASA, except the government never shrinks, so I don't know how to do it.

NASA is massively ineffectual and a huge waste of space (PI).  It's distracting what could be a vibrant private sector.  The Government didn't take computers from the size of an entire floor to the back of your wrist.  It's not going to bring YOU spaceflight either.  It's in the way, not part of the solution.

Buy out the entire NASA staff and start over again with new Position Descriptions.  Make it an NSF for Space.

[Chris Bergin]

Jeff Frost:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1386/1

[Danny Dot]

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.

Did Augustine pick him or did NASA pick him?

ESAS was apparently flawed because it relied 100% on a very pro-stick NASA support team.

Danny Deger

[nooneofconsequence]

Anything in the govt always gets moribund - that's why we kick up the dust with these commissions in the first place.

The problem with running it all to private industry is you still have the problem - witness Eisenhower's fears of the "military industrial complex".

My point is that its easy to get frustrated and try to reach out of the box for a solution - yet end up back in the box a different way.

The root problem is with human nature and the way we work to reach consensus. Lately those who thrive in sowing chaos have had a great time in the resulting whirlwind ... which isn't dying down.

[Danny Dot]

snip

I'm all for dissent, but when the squad is charging over the hill, there can't be three people with different roadmaps telling them where to go (or stay).

Even then the dissent should continue if you think the current plan is doomed to failure.  It is your duty to continue the dissent in this case.  But while dissenting, it is also your duty to work the plan as directed to the best of your ability. 

However the dissent should stop at the time the decision is made if you think the plan has a reasonable chance to work. 

Danny Deger

[hop]

Jeff Frost:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1386/1

Jeff Foust

Nice article.

[Danny Dot]

snip

And worse than that, I attribute 75% of the problem to NASA's inability to execute rather than the programmatic path they chose.  And that means there isn't a clear way out of the woods.

snip

Before thrust oscillation came to light, I thought the same.  I saw massive problems in the way program management was being setup and I had many years of experience in DOD to get a good feel for what it takes to manage a program. 

Now I think Ares I is still in really big technical problems with thrust oscillation -- and I personally don't see a good fix in the pipeline.

Danny Deger

[mars.is.wet]

Did Augustine pick him or did NASA pick him?

ESAS was apparently flawed because it relied 100% on a very pro-stick NASA support team.

Danny Deger

I personally know at least half of the ESAS team and they were not "pro-stick" going in.

And as head of PA&E, he was the logical candidate.  But NASA picked him.

[marsavian]

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.

How will EELV/DIRECT get a fair shake if that is the case ? We have already seen inaccurate, non-serious, to the point of comical, analyses of both these options from NASA so far.

I'm told Mr Hawes will be providing that same NASA data, which is the only data the review will be using to work out if the alternatives are viable. NASA's data says Direct doesn't work and EELVs can't launch humans, but ironically elements of Ares don't even pass the requirements, but comes out as the best option.

I suppose it'll come down to the members of the review being wise to that and questioning the data and the negative findings.

It's one thing to question, another to be able to technically challenge. The alternatives need to be able to answer criticisms for themselves and NASA can then respond accordingly with maybe the DoD as an external technical source weighing in. The way it is shaping up it will not be truly an independent review if NASA is the sole technical advisor. Bad bad design.