Blackstar - 2/11/2007 9:44 AMThor 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.
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!!
luke strawwalker - 10/11/2007 10:06 PMMy 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.
Blackstar - 11/11/2007 2:02 PM1) 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.
Analyst - 11/11/2007 10:47 AMSo 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.
Blackstar - 11/11/2007 7:02 AMQuoteluke strawwalker - 10/11/2007 10:06 PMMy 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.
Blackstar - 11/11/2007 9:36 AMI 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.
luke strawwalker - 15/11/2007 11:41 AMI'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.
Blackstar - 18/11/2007 10:20 PMQuoteluke strawwalker - 15/11/2007 11:41 AMI'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.
luke strawwalker - 19/11/2007 6:11 PMI'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
SpaceCat - 20/11/2007 1:32 AMIt 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.
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.
Gene DiGennaro - 21/11/2007 2:24 PMHe 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.
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.