Author Topic: Book: Escaping Gravity - My Quest to Transform NASA and Launch a New Space Age  (Read 36647 times)

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
NASA Admin, of course. But I hope Bridenstine gets to keep the position, regardless of who the next POTUS is. I think he's been doing a decent job.
Highly unlikely if the current white house is thrown out in November.
However, with this said Garver is viewed as toxic. I have significant doubts a Biden white house would re-introduce her. Or other former Obama Era folks. There'd be a few returns but it would likely be a clean slate across the board for most agencies.

They'd probably look for someone fresh for NASA admin, now as who that's a wide open question but a former (female?) astronaut might fit with the existing theme (example female VP promise).

This would get OT quick however, short version I don't see Garver getting this job regardless of who gets in the white house.

On another note.
Quote
In terms of the Obama Administration, they certainly deserve a lot of credit for commercial crew
Do they? Much as I despise him the commercial idea started with the Griffin regime. Obama could certainly have canceled or curtailed it so I will give him credit for standing behind it and not canning it with Cxp. But they didn't do anything to really accelerate it either, remember the Obama administration space policy was for NASA to be a research agency first and HSF second at some distant point in the future and stick to ISS. Commercial could arguably have been accelerated particularly if a flexible path BEO plan had been adopted in 2009 as WH policy, congress would have been far more reasonable to deal with on the issue if he'd come to them with a middle ground option like that.

Been discussed ad nasuem though.


« Last Edit: 05/29/2020 03:13 am by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Artemis isn't about flags and footprints. Why go to the South pole of the Moon if your objective is flags and footprints?

You seem to ignore the fact that 2024 was chosen not because NASA assessed ahead of time that it was doable, and that Congress agreed to fund it, but that it was chosen to happen by the end of a 2nd Trump term in office.

Quote
Besides, I think that the idea of selecting commercial, reusable landers is to ensure a sustainable presence to the Moon as soon as 2026.

Let's be honest here.

So far it has taken 14 years for NASA to build a human-rated spacecraft that Michael Griffin described as a "Apollo on steroids" design - pretty much no new ground was broke on this design, just an update to modern standards.

If NASA were to build its own Moon lander it likely would take a decade or more, so in order to meet the 2024 political requirement for landing humans on the Moon NASA had no choice but to give the private sector a chance.

Quote
There is also the idea of a base camp.

Lots of unfunded ideas out there, but until they are funded they are just ideas. In fact Artemis isn't fully funded yet either, so let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here.

The one thing that Garver does understand is that the SLS & Orion combo are too expensive to allow NASA to sustain any long term exploration. But ironically the human landing goal can still be met without the SLS and Orion, using the existing commercial elements and a few more commercial elements. And if that was a secret goal of Bridenstine, then good for him...  ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
They probably won't make the 2024 date. But I agree with Bridenstine that one of the biggest risks for Artemis is the political risks (change of administrations). But yes, I am also worried about funding for HLS.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
I don't think it's a question of "understanding" that SLS is too expensive I think it's "it's popular to re-state what everyone else knows so let me do that."

Also while I'm on this subject

Quote
Just to be clear I know that Garver deserves a lot of credit for pushing for commercial

No because this isn't what happened. The credit here goes to:
1. ULA for proposing a commercial BEO architecture before CXP even really got going, as they had the foresight to know it could not work.
2. Bill Nelson Joe Biden KBH and others in congress, who did not entirely trust the conventional contracting structure post CXP.
3. Augustine Comission.
4. Commercial space advocacy groups.

Commercial spaceflight lobbying came from some parts of congress and the nascent industry itself, and even from some "old space" in the form of ULA's papers. If anything NASA was a burden due to all the internal nonsense going on at the time.

Also I disagree with the sentiment that the commercial industry didn't exist or wasn't established enough in 2010. This is something I had to personally admit I was wrong about years ago when SLS went off the rails after having advocated against commercial and for SDHLV. The commercial industry might well have rapidly accelerated and achieved the same level of development they have now years ago if this is where the political and financial focus had been. We can't know that this would not have happened now and it's highly likely the outcome would have been different (in a positive way) compared to what we have now.

Also again, ULA already had a proposal years and years earlier which basically end up being ignored to the detriment of basically everything. Not saying this was some magic bullet but compared to SLS....
« Last Edit: 05/29/2020 03:34 am by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Perhaps, it would have been difficult to start a commercial HLS program in 2010 given the political environment at that time but the Obama Administration could have tried it again later on.

Again your focus is ONLY on returning to the Moon, and you seem to forget that the goal Obama set for NASA was to reach for Mars. Congress didn't agree with that, and it was not Obama that proposed the Asteroid Return Mission, it was Senator Nelson.

In the whole scheme of things I'm sure Obama is satisfied that he saved the ISS, which people tend to forget that it was going to be decommissioned by 2016. The ISS is critical for ALL human space exploration goals we may have, so just saving the ISS was a major accomplishment for all future human exploration - regardless the destination.

Adding the Commercial Crew program to complement the Commercial Cargo program was a major accomplishment too, and Congress was NOT enthusiastic about it. Obama had to use his "political capital" to pressure Congress to provide full funding - which they finally did.

In fact it is the success of both the Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew programs that finally allowed NASA to propose using New Space providers on the Artemis program. But that never could have happened during the Obama era, and once Obama was in his second term in office there were bigger political battles to use his remaining "political capital" on. Besides, the SLS and Orion are the child of Congress, not Obama, so he had no legacy to protect if they were not used.

And Garver gets some credit for shepherding both of those programs through challenging times. She wasn't in charge, but definitely part of the management team making sure things went right.

Quote
Incidentally, the same people that opposed commercial crew in Congress back then are now opposing commercial HLS. The environment is better than in 2010 but pushing for commercial partnerships still isn't easy.

Now you understand what Obama was up against. There are "some" in Congress that have a say over NASA that don't really care about space goals, they just care about money going to the right places. That is what created the SLS and Orion, and what has been trying to reduce the role of new hardware providers.

Just a note though. While the Commercial Cargo & Crew programs had some semblance of possible commercial use outside of NASA, there is no demonstrated non-NASA demand for such services at the Moon. So I don't really call the companies winning contracts "commercial", I would just call them New Space.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
It's not just New Space. It's a fixed price contract where NASA pays for a service. BAAs are also much better than FAR contracts. I disagree that there is no market for the Moon. There is a market (but not with SLS).
« Last Edit: 05/29/2020 04:06 am by yg1968 »

Online freddo411

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Liked: 1197
  • Likes Given: 3417
What Presidents propose makes a difference. The Obama administration proposed canceling Constellation and it got cancelled. Artemis got funded because the Trump administration proposed it. Commercial crew got funded because the Obama administration proposed it.

True but Alpha got greatly reworked. WH's trip to Mars was DOA. H's Constellation was cancelled. O's desire for how Constellation was cancelled was thwarted. Time will tell.

I guess Nixon won though. He wanted deep cuts and got them.

Sorry, only thing the brain can dredge up for C is changing Alpha into the ISS.

Clinton did a quite a job on Delta Clipper.   Killed that program dead.

Online freddo411

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Liked: 1197
  • Likes Given: 3417
...

Just a note though. While the Commercial Cargo & Crew programs had some semblance of possible commercial use outside of NASA, there is no demonstrated non-NASA demand for such services at the Moon. So I don't really call the companies winning contracts "commercial", I would just call them New Space.

The "commercial" language is not very clear, but the Fixed price contracts are a BIG deal compared to the cost-plus.

Perhaps we will see Old Space start effectively fulfilling Fixed price contracts, like NG on commercial cargo.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
NASA Admin, of course. But I hope Bridenstine gets to keep the position, regardless of who the next POTUS is. I think he's been doing a decent job.
Jim B. certainly has the right amount of enthusiasm for the job. But his record is mixed IMO. He has made bold moves forward with regards to returning to the Moon. ...

But he also has made several glaring mistakes. Getting rid of Gerst was a notable one. Loverro as his replacement turned out to be a bad choice.

Getting rid of Gerst may not have been a mistake, as I see it.  Gerst may get the chance to shine at SpaceX.  Guess we'll see.

Quote from: woods170
[Jim B.] also failed to deliver "the plan" for lunar exploration on time, despite US Congress asking for said plan multiple times. That in turn led to failing to gain sufficient support in US Congress (and thus funding) to properly execute on Artemis.

Fair criticism.

Quote from: woods170
IMO in everything Jim B. does it is very clear that he is a politician first and an administrator second. I won't be sorry if he has to leave, regardless of who the next POTUS is.

Political?  Jim B. and every other administrator since Webb, at least.  [BTW, JWST much?]

While it must be an especially difficult job to work for Trump, every last NASA administrator was and is a political creature.

Quote from: woods170
Can't wait to read more about what happened behind the scenes at NASA in the 2009 to 2014 timeframe.

Spoiler alert.  We won't be getting to the Moon any faster because of this book.

There'll be a few tidbits about managerial failure and corporate insiders making a fair bit of money.  Nothing happening here.  Move on, move on.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2457
  • Liked: 2412
  • Likes Given: 10224
Round and round we go...

I have always liked Lori Garver because she isn't feeding at the trough and is willing to ask fundamental questions loudly.  When some here say that she is just looking for attention, I say that we need more bomb throwers like her in this staid area of government-directed industry.  We need more of this, not less.

Personally, I don't think that half of NASA is worth saving.  But it's nice to see that at least things are somewhat less bad in part through the efforts of folks like Garver.  Her regret at making the deal with congress is interesting.

Fundamentally, the space program has been broken politically for many years because it hasn't given presidents anything for their efforts.  Certain members of congress get their political objectives fulfilled, but not presidents.  Apparently, the president's job on HSF is merely to deliver all of the copious bad news.  So why should presidents be supportive from term to term?  Bridenstine trying to get a launch in before 2024 is refreshing.  His desperation is invigorating.  It is not too much to ask, at half the price.
« Last Edit: 05/29/2020 02:33 pm by RedLineTrain »

Offline MoaMem

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 14
Artemis isn't about flags and footprints. Why go to the South pole of the Moon if your objective is flags and footprints? Besides, I think that the idea of selecting commercial, reusable landers is to ensure a sustainable presence to the Moon as soon as 2026. There is also the idea of a base camp.

If a single mission cost multiple billions (My bet is on $5B), can launch once a year tops and can only stay on the surface for like a week. You can only do flags and footprints no matter where you go!
« Last Edit: 05/29/2020 02:53 pm by MoaMem »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
The Obama administration proposed canceling Constellation and it got cancelled.

After a fashion, perhaps, but Constellation would have been self-cancelling anyway, because its future funding requirements were so enormous.  And, what actually changed, anyway?  The only projects actually being funded at the time were Orion and the Ares rockets, the latter being principally the 5-segment SRB.  Both of those are still with us today.  No significant money was ever spent on the Altair lander.

Quote
Artemis got funded because the Trump administration proposed it.

It hasn't really been funded yet.  Last year, Congress chipped in about a billion dollars, about 60% of what was requested.  Much more money will need to flow soon, and it is not obvious it will.  Here's one not far-fetched scenario:  NASA is funded by continuing resolution for FY 2021, meaning the big ramp-up in funding for Artemis is, at best, postponed.  Then Democrats win the White House, and Republicans in Congress rediscover their aversion to federal spending, exactly as happened the last time there was a Democratic president dealing with an economic crisis (2009).  Recall all of those Tea Party and Freedom Caucus members of Congress who strongly supported Orion and SLS will simultaneously insisting that increasing NASA's budget would be irresponsible.
« Last Edit: 05/29/2020 03:46 pm by Proponent »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Sorry, only thing the brain can dredge up for C is changing Alpha into the ISS.

I think the bigger legacy of Clinton's space policy was saving Alpha/ISS: Congress very nearly killed it.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
It's not just New Space. It's a fixed price contract where NASA pays for a service. BAAs are also much better than FAR contracts.

The contracting mechanism is important because that determines the business models everyone will use, and who accepts the risks. Garver at least has been more on the side of trying to create new businesses models and using NASA to help the industry try them out - like what NACA was doing prior to turning into NASA.

Quote
I disagree that there is no market for the Moon. There is a market (but not with SLS).

Please provide a list of LEGITIMATE companies that have committed to starting businesses on the surface of the Moon once transportation to the surface of the Moon is available.

Because unless you can produce such a list, there is no market.

That said, I do think that NASA should revert more to its NACA roots in order to help American companies experiment to see if they can create new business models in space, and I think we all eventually want there to be a market for people and businesses traveling to the surface of many places beyond Earth. But it doesn't exist today, and Artemis is not designed to address that problem.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
SpaceX has a customer to fly around the Moon on Starship. I am pretty sure that he would rather land on the Moon, if that was an option.  Same thing for the spaceflight participants that have gone to the ISS.
« Last Edit: 05/29/2020 07:39 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Incidentally, the same people that opposed commercial crew in Congress back then are now opposing commercial HLS.

Are you sure about that?  The Republican-controlled Senate is today by and large in favor of commercial landers but until Russia invaded Ukraine continually underfunded commercial crew.  The Democratically-controlled House was more favorable to commercial crew but today is pushing against commercial landers.
« Last Edit: 05/29/2020 07:49 pm by Proponent »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Incidentally, the same people that opposed commercial crew in Congress back then are now opposing commercial HLS.

Are you sure about that?  The Republican-controlled Senate is today by and large in favor of commercial landers but until Russia invaded Ukraine continually underfunded commercial crew.  The Democratically-controlled House was more favorable to commercial crew but today is pushing against commercial landers.

The most important opponent to commercial crew was Senator Shelby and he is still there. Senator Hutchison retired. Ted Cruz has always been very suportive of commercial crew or commercial partnerships in general. Senator Rubio is also very supportive of commercial crew. In the House, many Democrats and Republicans seemed to oppose commercial crew.
« Last Edit: 05/29/2020 08:40 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
SpaceX has a customer to fly around the Moon on Starship. I am pretty sure that he would rather land on the Moon, if that was an option.  Same thing for the spaceflight participants that have gone to the ISS.

You are talking infrequent tourism, which is not a "market". We don't need NASA to create tourism flights to the region of the Moon, because as you pointed out the private sector is already doing this. No taxpayer money is needed.

So based on your response I'm guessing you are confirming my proposition, that there is no current private industry market demand for doing things on the Moon.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
It's not a huge market but it is still a market. I think that this market will grow. Training for months in Russia wasn't very enticing for prospective tourists/space flight participants.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Just to be clear I know that Garver deserves a lot of credit for pushing for commercial

No because this isn't what happened. The credit here goes to:
1. ULA for proposing a commercial BEO architecture before CXP even really got going, as they had the foresight to know it could not work.
ULA proposed evolved versions of its launch vehicles in place of Shuttle-derived heavy lifters, but it does not build spacecraft.  It did not propose commercial crew.

Quote
2. Bill Nelson Joe Biden KBH and others in congress, who did not entirely trust the conventional contracting structure post CXP.
Nelson and KBH were the two most prominent Orion and SLS, which are huge (by NASA standards, anyway) examples of conventional contracting.

Quote
3. Augustine Comission.
With regard to launch vehicles, Augstine says that EELV-derived systems "may ultimately allow NASA to escape its conundrum of not having sufficient resources to both operate existing systems and build a new one" (Sect. 6.5.3., p. 93).  But please show me where it says anything about commercially-managed spacecraft.  Even the very important and game-changing point it made about commercial launch vehicles was buried.
The idea of commercial crew service to LEO pre-dates Augustine, going back at least as far as Mike Griffin's proposed COTS-D.  Augustine mentions it (5.3.3, p. 69) along with three other options for sending crew to LEO, noting its risks.  It does not recommend for or against.  Given the lack of a recommendation as well as, as far as I am aware, a lack of interest among senators and representatives as they discussed Augustine, I don't see how Augustine did much to promote commercial crew.  It didn't harm it, but it didn't promote it either.

Quote
4. Commercial space advocacy groups.
Yeah, they helped.  And Mike Griffin deserves some credit too, for having discussed "COTS-D."  But the fact is that the Commercial Crew Program was pushed through Congress by the Obama administration, and Garver had a lot to do with that.

EDIT:  Corrected and amplified comment on the Augustine report.
« Last Edit: 05/30/2020 06:49 pm by Proponent »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0