Augustine Commission Members Announced

[Danny Dot]

Some may find this hard to believe ... but sometimes the document number for a document is secured more than the document itself.

It's 42, seriously.  ELV-OSP-042.  Mr. Hawes' new friend has read it.

Is this the Orbital Space Plane report that states EELVs can carry a capsule to ISS?  Does it mention anything close to Direct? 

If it is, I read it when it came out.  I don't remember much analysis on shuttle derived making into the OSP report.  In fact I had inputs into it via the Launch Service Provider.  The stick was very much in favor with some powerful people at JSC, but Marshal and KSC hadn't drunk the kool-aid yet.  I couldn't find a copy on the net.  Maybe someone can get a copy into L2 or some other place.

Danny Deger

[mars.is.wet]

Doug Stanley led ESAS.  I don't recall Hawes on the team, or any mention that he was on the team.  At the time he was a Shuttle guy, and if anything he was likely on the S/SCOT study (Shuttle/Station Configuration Options Team) that has become ESAS's forgotten sister.

[Danny Dot]

Doug Stanley led ESAS.  I don't recall Hawes on the team, or any mention that he was on the team.  At the time he was a Shuttle guy, and if anything he was likely on the S/SCOT study (Shuttle/Station Configuration Options Team) that has become ESAS's forgotten sister.

OK then.  I am not nearly so nervous.  Lets wait a bit before we burn him at the stake. 

Do you know what Mr. Stanley is up to now days?

Danny Deger

[mars.is.wet]

http://www.nianet.org/graduateeducation/faculty.php

[Jeff Bingham]

Doug Stanley led ESAS.  I don't recall Hawes on the team, or any mention that he was on the team.  At the time he was a Shuttle guy, and if anything he was likely on the S/SCOT study (Shuttle/Station Configuration Options Team) that has become ESAS's forgotten sister.

OK then.  I am not nearly so nervous.  Lets wait a bit before we burn him at the stake. 

Do you know what Mr. Stanley is up to now days?

Danny Deger

I've known Mike for the better part of twenty years, and he doesn't have a dishonest bone in his body. Leave him the hell alone unless you have more than rumor and innuendo on which to base comments. Keep it to principles, not on personalities. There will be more than ample oversight over this review to judge whether it's being done properly, including direct interaction with the Committees of the Congress which have oversight responsibility for any FACA-based advisory group within their jurisdiction, as per Section 5 of FACA:

"(a) In the exercise of its legislative review function, each standing committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall make a continuing review of the activities of each advisory committee under its jurisdiction to determine whether such advisory committee should be abolished or merged with any other advisory committee, whether the responsibilities of such advisory committee should be revised, and whether such advisory committee performs a necessary function not already being performed. Each such standing committee shall take appropriate action to obtain the enactment of legislation necessary to carry out the purpose of this subsection.

(b) In considering legislation establishing, or authorizing the establishment of any advisory committee, each standing committee of the Senate and of the House of Representatives shall determine, and report such determination to the Senate or to the House of Representatives, as the case may be, whether the functions of the proposed advisory committee are being or could be performed by one or more agencies or by an advisory committee already in existence, or by enlarging the mandate of an existing advisory committee. Any such legislation shall -

(1) contain a clearly defined purpose for the advisory committee;

(2) require the membership of the advisory committee to be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee;

(3) contain appropriate provisions to assure that the advice and recommendations of the advisory committee will not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest, but will instead be the result of the advisory committee's independent judgment;

(4) contain provisions dealing with authorization of appropriations, the date for submission of reports (if any), the duration of the advisory committee, and the publication of reports and other materials, to the extent that the standing committee determines the provisions of section 10 of this Act to be inadequate; and

(5) contain provisions which will assure that the advisory committee will have adequate staff (either supplied by an agency or employed by it), will be provided adequate quarters, and will have funds available to meet its other necessary expenses.

(c) To the extent they are applicable, the guidelines set out in subsection (b) of this section shall be followed by the President, agency heads, or other Federal officials in creating an advisory committee."

This activity, while focused on legislative action, if needed, serves to also define the "oversight" function of the Committees of jurisdiction in this case, and the criteria on which they would base their "continuing review" (paragraph a) of the advisory body.

[clongton]

Thank you 51D.
We have been asking for an independant review and now we've got one.
I have no issues with anyone on the panel or in any support role.
They are all experts of one kind or another and come from a broad spectrum of backgrounds and disciplines.
Every one of them brings something valuable to the table - something we ALL need.
As far as I can tell these are all honest and fair, open minded people who will discharge their duties with integrity.
We could not ask for anything better.

We asked for the Review - We got the Review - Let's let the Review occur.

[Chris Bergin]

Appreciate the above comment 51D. Fascinating how that all works, as even I've had received furious communcations from industry people literally screaming blue murder over certain aforementioned names listed above (how's that for dramatics! )

Suppose one can't please everyone in the crowd!

[Namechange User]

Does anyone have insight to when and how often the committee is going to meet?  Is it always going to be in DC or they coming to other field centers? 

[nooneofconsequence]

Appreciate the above comment 51D. Fascinating how that all works, as even I've had received furious communcations from industry people literally screaming blue murder over certain aforementioned names listed above (how's that for dramatics! )

Suppose one can't please everyone in the crowd!

Not to be repetitive, but no one knows the whole story, and one can't presume guilt/complicity/etc.

Which is why we must all focus on transparency. If we put all of the energy into that and forgo conclusitory  remarks, we do all ourselves a load of good.

[renclod]

...
Can anyone confirm [] the analysis team that supported ESAS? 
...
Danny Deger 

ESAS report, section 16 is telling you this:

16. ESAS Core Team Members
NASA:
Dr. Doug Stanley – Study Manager (HQ)
Steve Cook – Deputy Study Manager (MSFC)
John Connolly – Deputy Study Manager (JSC)
Joe Hamaker (HQ)
Marsha Ivins (JSC)
Wayne Peterson (JSC)
Jim Geffre (JSC)
Bill Cirillo (LaRC)
Carey McClesky (KSC)
Jeff Hanley (JSC)
Steve Davis (MSFC)
Dr. Jay Falker (HQ)
Don Pettit (JSC)
Michelle Bailey (MSFC)
Frank Bellinger (HQ)
Doug Craig (HQ)
Jason Derleth (JPL)
James Reuther (ARC)
Consultants:
Bill Claybaugh (Self)
Joe Fragola (SAIC)
Bill McNally (CACI)
Part-Time Consultants:
Jay Greene (Retired NASA)
John Young (Retired NASA)
Bob Sieck (Retired NASA)
Bob Seamans (Retired NASA)
Administrative Support:
Mark Ogles (HQ)
Angela Michaels (HQ)
Bruce Shelton (MSFC)
Melissa Frazier (MSFC)
Independent Review Team:
Tom Young (Retired NASA)
Marsha Smith (Congressional Research Service)
Prof. John Logsdon (George Washington Univ.)
Maj. Gen. Kevin Chilton (USAF)
Maj. Gen. Charlie Bolden (USMC Retired)
Brig. Gen. Pete Worden (USAF Retired, Univ. of Arizona)
Pete Wilhelm (Naval Research Laboratory)

See if the name you're looking for is mentioned (it is not).
[ The probable next NASA Admin's name , is.]

[Namechange User]

Keeping this thread on topic....this was my suggestion on Leroy Chaio's blog. 

"Congratulations on your appointment Leroy.

I currently work as an engineer on the space shuttle program and have my opinions on what has been done and what should be done.

First, the current devlopment of Ares 1 and Ares 5 is not what was suggested in ESAS. While significant money has been spent on this development, it's not logical to continue to spend money on something that is not meeting, technical, cost or schedule milestones.

Second, the whole "1.5 launch architecture" makes no sense to me. You, better than most, understand there is no such thing as a 0.5 launch. With the current designs, we will have two seperate launch vehicles, with two seperate supply chains, two different sets of opreating procedures, two different but large groups of sustaining engineering, etc. The operations costs for such will be much larger than anticpated and will make the true goals of CxP unsustainable.

What I believe we need is to leverage the launch vehicle from as much existing hardware as possible to do the job. One where many of the components are flying and a true flight history can be gained from them. In addition, the costs of using these certainly minimizes development costs while being able to project operational costs with much higher confidence.

If such a launch vehicle was chosen, two launches may still be required but at least the mass to orbit can be spread out more equally and you have one common launch vehicle, one set of common facilities, etc.

In my opinion, the last 4 years have focused entirely too much on the launch vehicles that will only take us on the first 200 miles of this journey. It is our duty to make sure this effort can be affordable and sustainable. The lack of performance from Ares 1 has caused many issues for Orion, which in fact should only be a systems integration project because there is nothing to very little that actually needs to be developed.

Finally, due to the focus on the current architecture, "the gap" has done nothing but grow. From a progromatic standpoint, that should tell us we're doing something wrong right there. There are launch vehicles that have been studied for decades (NLS and now something like the Jupiter) that could provide much better synergy between the SSP and CxP. In today's economic climate that would seem to make perfect sense, to use what you have or is available to get the job done.

On a personal note, I wish you and the rest of the commission the best of luck. I'm in my early 30's and have a young faimily. Space flight is something I have wanted to do my entire life and it has been an honor to work on the SSP. I never saw Apollo, inherited orbiter but really want my career to involve going beyond LEO. With the current approach, I don't see how that is possible with approximately 6-7 years between shuttle completion and the first launch of Ares/Orion. I am very concerned that if and when it does fly it will not be "safe, simple and soon" as advertised and this nation will be left with less capability than we have now and no money left to fund anything else."

[Namechange User]

See if the name you're looking for is mentioned (it is not).
[ The probable next NASA Admin's name , is.]

Lets get off the conspiracy bandwagon here. 

These are the facts.  ESAS looked fine on paper, so it was generally accepted as "safe, simple and soon" and endorsed by many.  It didn't turn out that way and the vehicles under development today are NOT those described in the ESAS report. 

So lets not go looking for controversies and trying to spin people up when we know little about the Administrator-to-be's position on the CURRENT development effort or what the review board is going to do. 

[TrueBlueWitt]

Keeping this thread on topic....this was my suggestion on Leroy Chaio's blog. 

"Congratulations on your appointment Leroy.

I currently work as an engineer on the space shuttle program and have my opinions on what has been done and what should be done.

First, the current devlopment of Ares 1 and Ares 5 is not what was suggested in ESAS. While significant money has been spent on this development, it's not logical to continue to spend money on something that is not meeting, technical, cost or schedule milestones.

Second, the whole "1.5 launch architecture" makes no sense to me. You, better than most, understand there is no such thing as a 0.5 launch. With the current designs, we will have two seperate launch vehicles, with two seperate supply chains, two different sets of opreating procedures, two different but large groups of sustaining engineering, etc. The operations costs for such will be much larger than anticpated and will make the true goals of CxP unsustainable.

What I believe we need is to leverage the launch vehicle from as much existing hardware as possible to do the job. One where many of the components are flying and a true flight history can be gained from them. In addition, the costs of using these certainly minimizes development costs while being able to project operational costs with much higher confidence.

If such a launch vehicle was chosen, two launches may still be required but at least the mass to orbit can be spread out more equally and you have one common launch vehicle, one set of common facilities, etc.

In my opinion, the last 4 years have focused entirely too much on the launch vehicles that will only take us on the first 200 miles of this journey. It is our duty to make sure this effort can be affordable and sustainable. The lack of performance from Ares 1 has caused many issues for Orion, which in fact should only be a systems integration project because there is nothing to very little that actually needs to be developed.

Finally, due to the focus on the current architecture, "the gap" has done nothing but grow. From a progromatic standpoint, that should tell us we're doing something wrong right there. There are launch vehicles that have been studied for decades (NLS and now something like the Jupiter) that could provide much better synergy between the SSP and CxP. In today's economic climate that would seem to make perfect sense, to use what you have or is available to get the job done.

On a personal note, I wish you and the rest of the commission the best of luck. I'm in my early 30's and have a young faimily. Space flight is something I have wanted to do my entire life and it has been an honor to work on the SSP. I never saw Apollo, inherited orbiter but really want my career to involve going beyond LEO. With the current approach, I don't see how that is possible with approximately 6-7 years between shuttle completion and the first launch of Ares/Orion. I am very concerned that if and when it does fly it will not be "safe, simple and soon" as advertised and this nation will be left with less capability than we have now and no money left to fund anything else."

Very well stated OV-106.
I hope your message resonates well with Mr. Leroy Chaio.

[Chris Bergin]

Appreciate the above comment 51D. Fascinating how that all works, as even I've had received furious communcations from industry people literally screaming blue murder over certain aforementioned names listed above (how's that for dramatics! )

Suppose one can't please everyone in the crowd!

Not to be repetitive, but no one knows the whole story, and one can't presume guilt/complicity/etc.

Which is why we must all focus on transparency. If we put all of the energy into that and forgo conclusitory  remarks, we do all ourselves a load of good.

Well yes, which is why I didn't rush into an article when several people were claiming this review is being fixed on the "NASA only" data. However, I get the impression another media outlet will be regardless - sorry to say.

[Danny Dot]

You don't have to be dishonest to support your organization's design.  It is pretty much inherent in all analysis.  As an analysts for two major defense contractors I can tell you ALL of my analyses supported the design of my organization  -- and I don't consider myself a dishonest person.  It was my job to support my organization.

Left on its own, NASA analysis will support the current NASA design.  Saying this is not an insult to anyone and my apologies if it comes across this way.  In fact the analysts would not be "doing their job" if they didn't support their own organization.

Danny Deger

[mars.is.wet]

Does anyone have insight to when and how often the committee is going to meet?  Is it always going to be in DC or they coming to other field centers? 

Last plan was that they would travel.  Current plan is set but unspecified.

[Pheogh]

You don't have to be dishonest to support your organization's design.  It is pretty much inherent in all analysis.  As an analysts for two major defense contractors I can tell you ALL of my analyses supported the design of my organization  -- and I don't consider myself a dishonest person.  It was my job to support my organization.

Left on its own, NASA analysis will support the current NASA design.  Saying this is not an insult to anyone and my apologies if it comes across this way.  In fact the analysts would not be "doing their job" if they didn't support their own organization.

Danny Deger

Not to be naive about this but can you cite a specific example current or otherwise where the analysis can be honest but skewed toward your design.

[mars.is.wet]

You don't have to be dishonest to support your organization's design.  It is pretty much inherent in all analysis.  As an analysts for two major defense contractors I can tell you ALL of my analyses supported the design of my organization  -- and I don't consider myself a dishonest person.  It was my job to support my organization.

Left on its own, NASA analysis will support the current NASA design.  Saying this is not an insult to anyone and my apologies if it comes across this way.  In fact the analysts would not be "doing their job" if they didn't support their own organization.

Danny Deger

Not to be naive about this but can you cite a specific example current or otherwise where the analysis can be honest but skewed toward your design.

Lies of omission come to mind.  The full "story" is not honest, but the individual "analysis" is.  There are other ways.

[Danny Dot]

snip

Not to be naive about this but can you cite a specific example current or otherwise where the analysis can be honest but skewed toward your design.

One of the best ways is to use assumptions that favor your design, but state these assumptions -- if they are controversial, bury them an appendix.  One analysis I worked on was our air to ground missile had more range than Lockheed's missile.   The Lockheed analyst assumed the surface to air missiles were at the target, we assumed the missiles were spread out some distance from the target.   The Air Force civil servants had to decide which assumption they liked best.

All analysis has "wiggle room".  Loss of Crew analysis has LOTS of wiggle room to play with and wiggle the answer in the direction desired.  The SRB joint leak and case rupture analysis in ESAS is a great example.  NASA wiggled all the assumptions to make LOC better, but they stated what they were doing very clearly -- at least in the appendix that they didn't publish.  A big problem with the relationship between NASA and the ESAS panel is there was no organization such as ULA to give their EELV biased analysis to the panel (and yes ULA will certainly bias their analysis to support their design). 

On some comments in this thread that "we" should sit back and wait, I disagree.  The probability NASA will bias their analysis is basically 100% -- it is their job to do this.  If I was still a NASA analyst, I would be making the stick the best aerospace design ever conceived on this or any other planet.  It is essential analysts from ULA and other organizations have direct access to the commission.  Transparency alone is not enough.  One can easily bias a analysis with 100% transparency.  I used to make a good living doing this

Danny Deger

[nooneofconsequence]

Sure this isn't because the assumptions of the analysis aren't detailed, challenged, and explained?