Author Topic: Mars Wars The Rise and Fall of the Space Exploration Initiative  (Read 12514 times)

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Mars Wars The Rise and Fall of the Space Exploration Initiative
Thor Hogan
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070031234_2007032394.pdf
9.18MB, 198 pages



Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
VERY interesting read... past is prologue and I hope that the VSE doesn't end up the same way....  especially since this time NASA actually has both presidential (even if just lip service) support as well as the critical Congressional support (pursestrings) and even a little malaise-tinged public support as well.  If they drop the ball this time, I doubt they'll have another first down for about 20 years at least, and that's a LONG time to waste...

What scares me is that, like SEI, NASA trots out it's own plan, which just happens to be the most expensive and complex way (ARES) to fulfill the requirements (SDLV) set by Congress.   There are other SDLV alternatives that make better use of the money and give greater flexibility to the architecture and finances, while closing the gap and accelerating the schedule, but the powers that be inside NASA have latched onto their stick and won't let go no matter what.   I think if VSE dies it will be because of this single factor-- choosing the most expensive and difficult design that fits into the SDLV category (if barely fitting).  

Look at it this way.  Your neighbor says to you, "hey, I want to buy you lunch.  Where do you want to go?"  If you reply, "Well, if I can't go to Fogo De Ciao ($90 a plate) then I'm really not interested or can't go"  do you honestly think you're going to get more invitations to lunch??  Especially if you demand to be taken there in a limo??  This is the sort of thing that the book points out was the true killer of SEI and I'm afraid it will ultimately kill VSE.  

If it happens Congress is going to finally see NASA as a VERY high maintenance girlfriend who's looks have faded and probably figure she's not worth the money or the trouble...  Just my 2 cents... OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Thor wrote that as his Ph.D. thesis.  I was there for his defense and one of the questions put to him was why "Mars Wars" when SEI was really about the Moon?  

I have not read this book, although I have his dissertation (which I really ought to give back to the person who loaned it to me, I guess).  I hope that he was able to interview a couple of additional people for this final version.  He did a good job, but there is still a lot that is unknown about the decision process for SEI as well as the early months, which were crucial.

A few key questions:

-why was the decision made so quickly, with apparently so little thought?  There are a lot of things wrapped up in that question, such as was this typical of the Bush administration at the time?  In other words, was their chain of command and decision making process so sloppy that poorly-thought out ideas could become policy, with a presidential speech?

-what happened in the months immediately after the announcement of SEI?  The relationship between NASA and the White House, particularly the National Space Council, soured immediately.  Why?  Who were the people involved?

-what was Bush's response to the whole debacle?  I've heard that it really soured him on the whole thing.  It blew up in his face and became an immediate political liability.  Did he resent that?  Who did he blame?

I realize that on this site there are lots of people with solidified gripes who will instantly turn every discussion into a complaint about NASA's current Moon plans.  But the two events were different.  Thor's early manuscript was actually circulated in the Executive Branch because people making the decision that led to the Vision announcement wanted to do things differently this time.  They did not want to repeat the same mistakes.  So it's worth examining the SEI events in detail and figuring out what happened _before_ turning attention to the Vision and starting the standard gripe-fest.

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Blackstar - 2/11/2007  9:44 AM

Thor wrote that as his Ph.D. thesis.  I was there for his defense and one of the questions put to him was why "Mars Wars" when SEI was really about the Moon?  

I have not read this book, although I have his dissertation (which I really ought to give back to the person who loaned it to me, I guess).  I hope that he was able to interview a couple of additional people for this final version.  He did a good job, but there is still a lot that is unknown about the decision process for SEI as well as the early months, which were crucial.

A few key questions:

-why was the decision made so quickly, with apparently so little thought?  There are a lot of things wrapped up in that question, such as was this typical of the Bush administration at the time?  In other words, was their chain of command and decision making process so sloppy that poorly-thought out ideas could become policy, with a presidential speech?

-what happened in the months immediately after the announcement of SEI?  The relationship between NASA and the White House, particularly the National Space Council, soured immediately.  Why?  Who were the people involved?

-what was Bush's response to the whole debacle?  I've heard that it really soured him on the whole thing.  It blew up in his face and became an immediate political liability.  Did he resent that?  Who did he blame?

I realize that on this site there are lots of people with solidified gripes who will instantly turn every discussion into a complaint about NASA's current Moon plans.  But the two events were different.  Thor's early manuscript was actually circulated in the Executive Branch because people making the decision that led to the Vision announcement wanted to do things differently this time.  They did not want to repeat the same mistakes.  So it's worth examining the SEI events in detail and figuring out what happened _before_ turning attention to the Vision and starting the standard gripe-fest.

My point wasn't to knock any specific architecture or cheerlead for any particular alternative, the POINT I was trying to make is that the same culture of lack of alternatives and choosing the most difficult or expensive path seems to be a common theme in both SEI and VSE.   I don't see how making the same kinds of choices in the same way will magically have a different outcome simply because nearly 20 years has passed.  Typically making the same choices in the same manner under similar conditions yields pretty similar results.  Sure the situation is quite a bit different now than then, which is why VSE has had a LOT more traction than SEI EVER did, BUT as problems manifest themselves, the schedule slips, costs escalate, and budget pressures increase, there is a real danger of the effort stalling or losing the critical support from those holding the pursestrings to make this thing happen, or being redirected into something essentially brand new and having little resemblance to the plan as it was originally envisioned.  That is what concerns me.  

BTW, Alternatives are a GOOD thing.... OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883

To be fair, the SEI was a product of its time, including some naivete' from its authors. Also, America was still in the grips of a slight recession at the time and many of the revolutionary technologies and sheer audacious ideas that we have now were either only in their infancy at the time, or plain didn't  yet exist. In my opinion, SEI almost had to fail so we could do it better this time. Although I almost weep for all that lost time. The current approach could work if we (can) help straighten out the wrinkles in it: go to a better, more pure Shuttle-derived launch architecture -- with or without  EELV-derived supplementing/plugging gaps in capability.

The Vision For Space Exploration or something very similar must survive into the next White House administration, or more decades will be wasted and all the years of work from the likes of us "Space Geeks" will cease to have much relevance. Thanks to this amazing forum (and other similar ones), space professionals, entreprenuers, 'armchair rocket scientists' and even mere dreamers like me can all band together to help manned space exploration not only survive, but prosper. Jeffrey Bell might roll his eyes at my enthusiasm, but it wouldn't the first time he'd done so at yours truly.

We can do this thing. Let's do this thing!!  ;)  

"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Geez, the text in my previous post is all over the place -- what happened there?!
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Quote
luke strawwalker - 10/11/2007  10:06 PM
My point wasn't to knock any specific architecture or cheerlead for any particular alternative, the POINT I was trying to make is that the same culture of lack of alternatives and choosing the most difficult or expensive path seems to be a common theme in both SEI and VSE.

No, that is not correct.  For example, the SEI folks essentially assumed that NASA's budget would double.  The VSE was rolled out with only a modest five percent increase in NASA's budget expected (and the administration did not deliver even that).

The current Vision architecture may not be what you want, but by no means is it "the most expensive" option that NASA could have chosen.  In fact, it was deliberately chosen to be affordable, by using existing hardware, etc.  As another example, one of the early iterations of the SEI approach assumed building an additional shuttle launch pad.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Quote
Blackstar - 11/11/2007  2:02 PM

1) The current Vision architecture may not be what you want, but by no means is it "the most expensive" option that NASA could have chosen.  
2) In fact, it was deliberately chosen to be affordable, by using existing hardware, etc.

1) It can't be, by definiton there is always a more expensive architecture.
2) Correct, but it is still not remotely affordable within the current or the projected budget. Look at the cuts in other NASA departments and we still can barely afford an underperforming Ares I and a stripped down Orion, first manned flight NET 2015. Not only NASA is to be blamed for this: To believe we can go to the moon and do the other things for much, much less money with more capable spacecraft than Apollo did, and stay there is a dream from fantasyland. We will all wakeup soon. Direct is probably more affordable, but I strongly doubt the budget is enough for even this. We should not forget the EDS and lunar lander complexity (=cost), not even talking about a lunar base.

Analyst

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
I understand that there is a knee-jerk reaction in the Internet space community to turn _every_ space discussion into a diatribe about how terrible the ESAS architecture is, but try and resist the urge.  (Seriously, you guys are a broken record.)  The book is about SEI.  That's what the thread was about.  If you want to drag out tired arguments about ESAS and the Vision, then why not post them to one of the several dozen other threads where they appear?

What I was pointing out is that there are big differences between SEI and the VSE, which you have to acknowledge because, well, they're obvious.  SEI was not initially conceived as an affordable program.  As I've written elsewhere (and even provided the documentation), NASA had huge cost estimates for SEI even before it was proposed.  The VSE was conceived with the previous errors in mind.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
So SEI was truthful about its costs while VSE (or better its implementation ESAS) claimed having much lower costs (and schedule and technical complexity) than if calculated truthful (lowballing), resulting in the problems I mentioned above. I sure see the difference, but I don't see the progress as in better.

Analyst

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Quote
Analyst - 11/11/2007  10:47 AM

So SEI was truthful about its costs while VSE (or better its implementation ESAS) claimed having much lower costs (and schedule and technical complexity) than if calculated truthful (lowballing), resulting in the problems I mentioned above. I sure see the difference, but I don't see the progress as in better.

Huh?

First, please go read Thor Hogan's book.  It's not that long.

You could also read my piece on the origins of the large SEI cost estimates:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/119/1

And my article on the origins and failure of SEI:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/102/1

I thought I had put the pdf file of the SEI cost estimate online, but I cannot immediately find it.  It might also be at the NASA history site (I suggested that they put it up there).

We can have a long and detailed discussion of the origins of SEI if you want.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
This whole discussion reminds me of a passage from Steven Baxters "Voyage":

Agronksi studied him analytically, "You know, you people at NASA have been the same whenever I dealt with you.  So emotive.  So unrealistic.  EVen you Fred.  Every time we ask for proposals. back you come wanting everything:  look at the Space Task Group report with its "balenced programs" its wide range of technologies.  You ask for Mars, but that brings everything in its wake, it seems:  nuclear boosters, a Space Shuttle, huge space stations.  The same old visoin von Braun has peddled  since the 1950s -- even though you didn't need a space station t get to the moon.  Your hidden agendas are not, frankly, very well hidden.  Why can't yo learn to prioritize?


NASA does not seem to be making the same mistake in the same way at least.     VSE is at least not asking for large sums of money, but the risk is that they are not asking for enough.  And, to some, the goal seems wrong.  However, instead of a space station - we already have it and we are gong to abandon it - we pick up a permanent lunar base.  We still want nuclear rockets.  We of course need new boosters, because the current ones are not powerful enough.

I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Blackstar - 11/11/2007  7:02 AM

Quote
luke strawwalker - 10/11/2007  10:06 PM
My point wasn't to knock any specific architecture or cheerlead for any particular alternative, the POINT I was trying to make is that the same culture of lack of alternatives and choosing the most difficult or expensive path seems to be a common theme in both SEI and VSE.

No, that is not correct.  For example, the SEI folks essentially assumed that NASA's budget would double.  The VSE was rolled out with only a modest five percent increase in NASA's budget expected (and the administration did not deliver even that).

The current Vision architecture may not be what you want, but by no means is it "the most expensive" option that NASA could have chosen.  In fact, it was deliberately chosen to be affordable, by using existing hardware, etc.  As another example, one of the early iterations of the SEI approach assumed building an additional shuttle launch pad.

I'll agree with you that what was ORIGINALLY SOLD was not the most expensive option but I think it is pretty self-evident it has morphed into just that condition, however unintentionally.  Name one piece of 'existing hardware' that is being used basically as is WITHOUT a major redesign or development project, quite apart from retesting/recertification which is pretty much a given.  How exactly is all that redesign/redevelopment 'affordable' again??  So one of the SEI approaches was to build a new pad.  How exactly is this different from huge infrastructure changes to the VAB, new crawlers, 2 new MLP's and EXTENSIVE heavy modifications to two others??  How exactly is that 'affordable' when there are other alternatives that minimize/eliminate all those changes and the major $$$ attendant to those changes???  Now add in the fact that the SRB's are requiring redesign to the five segment configuration and all the attendant changes there, and subsequent expense, and the fact that they are looking at expending the SRB's (or possibly redesigning for expendability) coupled with the fact that there are serious problems with the expense, performance, schedule, and ultimately the practicality of the entire endeavor and I fail to see how this is the most 'affordable' program possible.  Couple that with the recalcitrance to look at any alternatives despite mounting problems (and costs) and steadfastly holding to the same idea no matter how many problems or costs come up, or how difficult, expensive, inefficient, unsafe, or infeasible it increasingly becomes, and I see the same formula as before...

I'm sorry but I just don't let folks pee on my leg and tell me it's raining...

I will concede that the 'pay as you go' approach is a MAJOR step forward and a very good sign, and certainly one that is a long time in coming!  JMHO!   OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Blackstar - 11/11/2007  9:36 AM

I understand that there is a knee-jerk reaction in the Internet space community to turn _every_ space discussion into a diatribe about how terrible the ESAS architecture is, but try and resist the urge.  (Seriously, you guys are a broken record.)  The book is about SEI.  That's what the thread was about.  If you want to drag out tired arguments about ESAS and the Vision, then why not post them to one of the several dozen other threads where they appear?

What I was pointing out is that there are big differences between SEI and the VSE, which you have to acknowledge because, well, they're obvious.  SEI was not initially conceived as an affordable program.  As I've written elsewhere (and even provided the documentation), NASA had huge cost estimates for SEI even before it was proposed.  The VSE was conceived with the previous errors in mind.

Yes and STS was sold as the "DC-10 to space" with launch costs so cheap that anybody and anything would be orbited and they'd launch every week or two.  Just because something is conceived or sold as being a certain thing doesn't mean that's what it ends up being!!!  I think that's the REAL art to all this, to PREVENT it from becoming another STS or SEI pipe dream that everyone else realizes as pure fantasy except those closest to it.  As Analyst said above, figuring that we're going to be able to develop and operate 2 launchers, 2 new spacecraft (Orion and LSAM) (and possibly a third depending on how similar/different the cargo LSAM is from the manned version) an EDS and Moon Base paying the same payroll we do now on STS and ISS (minus natural attrition) with ONLY the STS/ISS money is a pipe dream to me... That's a concern I've brought up in other threads about some of the alternatives; how will it be cheaper if we're paying out the same payroll to the same number of folks?? Where will these miraculous 'savings' come from when the main costs to STS is claimed to be the large workforce??

Oh, and BTW, it's not about what I 'prefer'; I really don't care what is ultimately flown (or not) but what it's all about, to me, is what's safe and what works, and what's efficient enough in the end to actually keep going....  JMHO!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Quote
luke strawwalker - 15/11/2007  11:41 AM
I'll agree with you that what was ORIGINALLY SOLD was not the most expensive option but I think it is pretty self-evident it has morphed into just that condition, however unintentionally.

No, you're wrong.  Please, just read the book and then come back and we can discuss it.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Review: Mars Wars
by Jeff Foust
Monday, November 19, 2007

[MORE]
http://thespacereview.com/article/1001/1

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Blackstar - 18/11/2007  10:20 PM

Quote
luke strawwalker - 15/11/2007  11:41 AM
I'll agree with you that what was ORIGINALLY SOLD was not the most expensive option but I think it is pretty self-evident it has morphed into just that condition, however unintentionally.

No, you're wrong.  Please, just read the book and then come back and we can discuss it.

I've read the book cover to cover online and I still see what I see... If you don't or can't that's fine, more power to you... over and OUT!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Quote
luke strawwalker - 19/11/2007  6:11 PM
I've read the book cover to cover online and I still see what I see... If you don't or can't that's fine, more power to you... over and OUT!  OL JR :)

Good.  Now you understand that SEI was originally proposed as a $500 billion program that would immediately double NASA's budget.  And the Vision for Space Exploration and the ESAS architecture are _nothing_ at all like that.

Offline SpaceCat

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
To refresh my memory I went back and read your histories of those before- not just SEI, but Pioneering The Space Frontier, NEXT, et. al.....
It seems most of these great plans got into trouble the moment a pricetag was hung on them, even if the numbers were faulty.  This brought to mind a talk I heard Gene Kranz give about 10 years ago.  At the time he was suggesting a dustoff & update of Pioneering The Space Frontier- to use as a directional guide with no costs or timetables specified.  The idea being, more would get done during administrations friendly to space; less during administrations not so friendly-- but there would be a steady course laid out to follow that would eventually have us doing something meanigful on the moon and making it to Mars.
There's certainly merit to that kind of thinking, so long as the plan is flexible enough to allow for reasonable R&D without Venturestar-type false starts and money pits.  
Since we'll probably never again have a cold war space race to ramp things up, I think the history lesson here is to go slow (as much as we space fans hate that) and avoid the 'sticker shock.'

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Quote
SpaceCat - 20/11/2007  1:32 AM
It seems most of these great plans got into trouble the moment a pricetag was hung on them, even if the numbers were faulty.  This brought to mind a talk I heard Gene Kranz give about 10 years ago.  At the time he was suggesting a dustoff & update of Pioneering The Space Frontier- to use as a directional guide with no costs or timetables specified.  The idea being, more would get done during administrations friendly to space; less during administrations not so friendly-- but there would be a steady course laid out to follow that would eventually have us doing something meanigful on the moon and making it to Mars.

I'm not sure that will work.  The reason is that the administration can propose, but Congress always wants a price tag.  And they are entitled to it.  They approve a lot of things without knowing their ultimate cost, but there is some attempt to put costs on programs when they are first approved and NASA should not be any different.

I think the better approach is to not adopt overly ambitious plans to begin with.  Pioneering the Space Frontier was all blue sky thinking and was dead on arrival for more reasons than the fact that it arrived right after Challenger's accident (the response at that time was "NASA is a mess, so why should they be trusted with something so big?").

SEI failed for a lot more reasons than just its sticker shock.  When you think about it, Bush entered office in January 1989 and by July he was issuing a major space policy initiative.  That's not a heck of a lot of time for people to deliberate.  I think that it's possible that if they had scaled back a lot, they might have--MIGHT have--had a better shot.  They could have gone for something like "return humans to the Moon by 2000."  They had existing shuttle infrastructure.  (Still, I think that would not have worked.  They were still designing the space station, and I have my doubts about the agency's ability to undertake more than one major development program at a time.)

So I think that the first key step is to not produce overly ambitious reports (your definition of "ambitious" may vary).  The second step is to produce modest realistic steps.  You cannot have big goals and then refuse to put budgets or timetables on them, because budgets and timetables are necessary management tools.

Offline modavis

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Langhorne, PA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

SpaceCat: "the history lesson here is to go slow (as much as we space fans hate that)..." Blackstar: "..."to not produce overly ambitious reports... to produce modest realistic steps."

 Music to my ears, but I fear there's still a long way to go before that kind of thinking replaces nostalgia for the space-race years... and beyond that, the (idealized and over-simplified) memory of how fast aviation advanced in its first fifty years... and beyond that, all the Columbus and Wright brothers and other "great leap forward" metaphors lavished on space over the years.

Every time I hear "all we've done since 1972 is go around in circles in LEO"... every time the Zubrinistas tell me we need a Mars commitment to fire the public imagination ... every time someone invokes JFK and "we do it because it is hard" yet again... I find myself thinking that we need patience and realism a lot more than we need yet another shot of Vision. We need a better "three yards and a cloud of dust" ground game, and less dependence on the long bomb.

 That's a hard sell to the public, to Congress -- even to myself. But by now, I would gladly trade all the Powerpoint porn for a steady, cumulative 2% a year shaved off the cost per kg to LEO. If we can do that, all the big thrilling missions will come in time. If we can't, the next generation will prove as rich in false starts and frustration as the last one.


Offline Gene DiGennaro

  • Armchair Astronaut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Baltimore, Md
    • Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 16
I read Mars Wars and it is very depressing actually. For once, a President truly in human spaceflight for its own sake. Say what you will about Kennedy, but his feelings need to be placed in the context of the Cold War. Once committed to Apollo, even Kennedy had second thoughts. George Bush presided during the end of the Cold War, he had the ability to look forward to put the Solar System in the USA's sphere of influence.

Adm. Truly  was a Vietnam era military pilot and as such, saw what happens when fliers don't get the support they need to conduct an operation. In addition, he was an astronaut during the hard times of the 70s and the false exuberance of the early shuttle years. He saw directly what  doing spaceflight on the cheap does for NASA's morale. So naturally it only seemed logical for him to go to his deputies and say "let's do this right". He saw directly what not doing it right would bring.  

It's a crying shame that neither the President or Dick Truly could reach common ground and submit a plan to Congress.  If the plan were more affordable, than metal would have been cut and by Clinton's election in 1992, the Mars effort would have been too big to stop.

Another 15 years wasted.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Quote
Gene DiGennaro - 21/11/2007  2:24 PM
He saw directly what  doing spaceflight on the cheap does for NASA's morale. So naturally it only seemed logical for him to go to his deputies and say "let's do this right". He saw directly what not doing it right would bring.  

Go to the NASA history website and download the 90-Day Study.  It's relatively short and easy reading.  When you read that, you'll see that NASA's planning on this was nuts.  They came up with a plan to do everything all at once.

I chalk that up to bad leadership.  They should have been very constrained from the start, with a statement of task like "design a preliminary plan for returning humans to the Moon in 10 years using existing launch infrastructure.  Using the space station is optional for this task.  Low cost is the overriding priority."

Instead, they ignored cost completely, which was idiotic.

Offline modavis

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Langhorne, PA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Quote
Gene DiGennaro - 21/11/2007  3:24 PM  [Kennedy's] feelings need to be placed in the context of the Cold War... George Bush presided during the end of the Cold War, he had the ability to look forward to put the Solar System in the USA's sphere of influence.

I can't make sense of this, Gene. Didn't the end of the Cold War make it that much harder rather than easier to sell the importance of expanding our "sphere of influence"? Are you reading SEI as GHW Bush saying "OK, our prime competitor is out of steam, so let's redouble our efforts"..? Doesn't sound like a slam dunk argument to me. One could also ask what allies, markets, strategic bases, resources -- what "sphere of influence" has always meant -- you imagine the Solar System holds on any relevant time scale. As for Vietnam... no, not going there.

I was a teenager during Apollo, and covered NASA as a journalist in the 70s and early 80s, but I also have 22- and 20-year-old sons, and have talked to a lot of people from 12 to 25 about space over the last few years. It would take a long time to describe their take on the US, our international situation, and the future in space -- but trust me, there's no freakin way to shoehorn it into frames from the Cold War, the 1957-1969 space race, or Vietnam. They also don't think a Corvette is the last word in transportation, that Gunsmoke is the best thing on TV, or that a K&E DeciTrig slide rule and Princess phone are at the bleeding edge of IT.

 


Offline Gene DiGennaro

  • Armchair Astronaut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Baltimore, Md
    • Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 16
I understand that without a Cold War, a human Mars mission was a difficult sell in the early 90s. I guess I was thinking idealistically in that once the shackles of the Cold War were removed, the USA could expand its frontier.
The Vietnam reference was about proper planning and follow through. We all know US aviators had one hand tied when doing their job. No doubt this frustrated Vietnam era fliers like Truly. The shuttle was built without the best of planning and follow through. NASA did the best she could given the climate of the times. With this in mind, I believe Truly planned for a much more detailed mission.

What's wrong with a Corvette?  :laugh:

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Blackstar - 11/11/2007  7:02 AM

Quote
luke strawwalker - 10/11/2007  10:06 PM
My point wasn't to knock any specific architecture or cheerlead for any particular alternative, the POINT I was trying to make is that the same culture of lack of alternatives and choosing the most difficult or expensive path seems to be a common theme in both SEI and VSE.

No, that is not correct.  For example, the SEI folks essentially assumed that NASA's budget would double.  The VSE was rolled out with only a modest five percent increase in NASA's budget expected (and the administration did not deliver even that).

The current Vision architecture may not be what you want, but by no means is it "the most expensive" option that NASA could have chosen.  In fact, it was deliberately chosen to be affordable, by using existing hardware, etc.  As another example, one of the early iterations of the SEI approach assumed building an additional shuttle launch pad.

Oh ESAS was and is the most expensive architecture but chosen is not the correct word.  The results of all of the CE&R studies were completely ignored and at the final briefings Mike G could not be bothered to send anyone senior in the ESMD office to attend.  There were many alternatives presented (As was recommended in Thor's book), but NASA once again ignored everyone and presented their fait accompli design that has all of the structural flaws of SEI.



Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Hmmm... Interesting going back and doing a little reading... 

Hate being right, but I told you so...

Later!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Tags:
 

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