Author Topic: National Space Council Reestablished  (Read 98117 times)

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #180 on: 02/21/2018 05:14 pm »
Relook, yep, cargo not crew.
Two of those have flown, one not so much... ;)

Two of which?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #181 on: 02/21/2018 05:15 pm »
Relook, yep, cargo not crew.
Two of those have flown, one not so much... ;)

Two of which?
Orion and Dragon...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18201
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #182 on: 02/21/2018 05:39 pm »
National Space Council meeting over.

In summary: China is bad. Regulation is bad. Did you see that Falcon Heavy launch! Oh, but those Chinese....

That's two hours I won't get back. That was like pulling teeth.
Seriously Chris, had you expected anything else?

Glad I skipped watching this one.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #183 on: 02/21/2018 06:24 pm »
National Space Council meeting over.

In summary: China is bad. Regulation is bad. Did you see that Falcon Heavy launch! Oh, but those Chinese....

That's two hours I won't get back. That was like pulling teeth.

They'll never get any 'work' done at these meetings, ever. 
Neither will the advisory panel get any 'work' done.
Both are too high level, show-and-tell publicity events. 

Need each group to have a staff-level ongoing/continuous dive into the weeds, wrestling with the real issues... then have the occasional high level meeting to endorse/sign/grab all credit for actual products.  Use the State Department's treaty negotiating tactics and solve the tough issues out of the spotlight, where it is much easier to seek compromise and real solutions, then let the leaders take all the bows.

VP Pence tries to act like the Council is actually doing work, but ...
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48176
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81676
  • Likes Given: 36941
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #184 on: 02/21/2018 07:36 pm »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #185 on: 02/21/2018 09:07 pm »
MLD is less than honest when she used Commercial Crew as an example where COTS/public private partnership is not doing well, did she forget CCtCAP is actually under FAR, not SAA?
Let's not cast aspersions on respected members of this website.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #186 on: 02/22/2018 01:55 am »
I found the testimony by Acting NASA Director Mr Lightfoot most interesting

Exploration Campaign: LEO, Lunar Orbit, Mars
- LEO/ISS -> Commercial & international partners
- Lunar
  SLS/Orion: uncrewed 2020, crewed 2023
  Manned orbital platform/gateway
  Lunar surface robotics, Small commercial lander 2020, Medium lander (man-rating)
  Cubesats, Virtual Institute(??)
- Mars
  Rover 2020: Sample return, O2 generation


This seems like a very sane and reasonable roadmap.
Based on past posts, Bigelow could be useful for the Deep Space Gateway.
Blue Moon could be used for the commercial lunar lander.
Would NASA resume work on Altair for the medium lander?
What's the purpose of a Virtual Institute?
Who will launch the rover to Mars in 2020? (Falcon Heavy?)
« Last Edit: 02/22/2018 01:56 am by sanman »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #187 on: 02/22/2018 02:51 am »
I thought ULA already had the launch contract for Rover 2020 ?
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11172
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8802
  • Likes Given: 7821
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #189 on: 02/22/2018 03:16 am »
MLD is less than honest when she used Commercial Crew as an example where COTS/public private partnership is not doing well, did she forget CCtCAP is actually under FAR, not SAA?

She didn't actually say that. She said that commercial crew was more complicated (than COTS) because of astronaut safety issues.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #190 on: 02/22/2018 03:44 am »
National Space Council meeting over.

In summary: China is bad. Regulation is bad. Did you see that Falcon Heavy launch! Oh, but those Chinese....

That's two hours I won't get back. That was like pulling teeth.

They'll never get any 'work' done at these meetings, ever. 
Neither will the advisory panel get any 'work' done.
Both are too high level, show-and-tell publicity events. 

Need each group to have a staff-level ongoing/continuous dive into the weeds, wrestling with the real issues... then have the occasional high level meeting to endorse/sign/grab all credit for actual products.  Use the State Department's treaty negotiating tactics and solve the tough issues out of the spotlight, where it is much easier to seek compromise and real solutions, then let the leaders take all the bows.

VP Pence tries to act like the Council is actually doing work, but ...

I thought that it was a productive meeting. It's kind of long to summarize. Regulation reform was more specific when the panelists commented on it. Essentially, there is a duplication of efforts where more than one department is in charge of the same thing. There was a recommendation to have the department of commerce in charge of a commercial launch except for the launch and landing part of a launch (which would continue being the FAA-AST, I believe). There was also a complaint that a license for one launch site doesn't work for other launch sites even if it only a few miles away. There was also some complaints about ITAR making american companies less competitive. . 

There was some discussion on the ISS ending in 2025. Nanoracks said that the idea of having NASA as a tenant (as opposed to a landlord) in LEO was a good idea. Pence said that he liked the analogy. Mary Lynn said that some efforts were necessary in order to stimulate the demand side for a LEO station/habtitat. Both Nanoracks and Mary Lynn stressed the importance of a smooth transition plan for the ISS.

Pence stressed the importance of cooperation with the private sector for exploration in general. Pence said that America is leading again in space. Implied in that claim was that the President had refocused NASA on human exploration which made America leaders in space again. The success of FH was another example that America is leading in space again. The discussion about China was mostly to say that the United States needs to keep leading militarily and commercially in space in order not to be surpassed by China. 

I wonder if the 45 day reports are available, they might give us more information on all of this.

Edit: It's the department of commerce that would be the main department for commercial space affairs (not the department of transportation).
« Last Edit: 02/24/2018 12:14 am by yg1968 »

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #191 on: 02/22/2018 04:35 am »
MLD is less than honest when she used Commercial Crew as an example where COTS/public private partnership is not doing well, did she forget CCtCAP is actually under FAR, not SAA?

She didn't actually say that. She said that commercial crew was more complicated (than COTS) because of astronaut safety issues.

Her words at , 1:49:10, as much as I can make out, is this

Quote
Other Transaction Agreeements or OTAs represent a different approach, not subject to the oversight required by federal contracts. OTAs provide flexibility but also increase risk of reduced accountability and transparency. For this reason, the vast majority of them are relatively low value. Notable exceptions include Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) and the Commercial Crew development program, both at NASA. During COTS, the government invested a substantial amount of the cost and left development in the hands of private enterprise. The resulting system were developed at much less cost to the government than a traditional cost plus contract would have achieved. The story is less clear with the crewed system however, where the balance between contractor descretion, government insight and the risk to human lives continue to be debated.

Error: Commercial Crew is not using OTA in its current phase (CCtCAP), so using it as an example of OTA is wrong.

Omission: OTA was (and is) also used by Air Force in their EELV program, which is nothing but low value.

Semi-erroneous: My interpretation of her phrasing "The story is less clear" is that she thinks unlike COTS, Commercial Crew is not achieving low cost when compared to cost plus, if this interpretation is correct then this is also wrong given the huge cost difference between Orion and CC.

Twisted logic: The whole reason CC is delayed is because it's under FAR and NASA is imposing changes, now this delay is being used to prove OTA doesn't always work well and we should go back to FAR. Do you see how perverse this logic is?
« Last Edit: 02/22/2018 05:00 am by su27k »

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #192 on: 02/22/2018 06:24 am »
I thought that it was a productive meeting. It's kind of long to summarize. Regulation reform was more specific when the panelists commented on it. Essentially, there is a duplication of efforts where more than one department is in charge of the same thing. There was a recommendation to have the department of transportation in charge of a commercial launch except for the launch and landing part of a launch (which would continue being the FAA-AST, I believe). There was also a complaint that a license for one launch site doesn't work for other launch sites even if it only a few miles away. There was also some complaints about ITAR making american companies less competitive.

Does it require the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of Transportation, and a whole lot of other top level government officials to remove duplication between two departments, and reduce the number of steps for getting a launch license?

Has no one heard of delegation?

If it's a big issue that merits high-level and immediate action, then you create a commission, staff it with experts, and charge it with providing recommendations. Otherwise normal staff or tiger teams can handle these types of issues.

I mention this because 10 top-level government leaders only getting together every couple of months is not going to be able to provide a very fast velocity of change...
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 woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18201
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #193 on: 02/22/2018 06:52 am »

Her words at

, 1:49:10, as much as I can make out, is this

Quote from: Mary Lynne Dittmar
Other Transaction Agreeements or OTAs represent a different approach, not subject to the oversight required by federal contracts. OTAs provide flexibility but also increase risk of reduced accountability and transparency. For this reason, the vast majority of them are relatively low value. Notable exceptions include Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) and the Commercial Crew development program, both at NASA. During COTS, the government invested a substantial amount of the cost and left development in the hands of private enterprise. The resulting system were developed at much less cost to the government than a traditional cost plus contract would have achieved. The story is less clear with the crewed system however, where the balance between contractor descretion, government insight and the risk to human lives continue to be debated.

Error: Commercial Crew is not using OTA in its current phase (CCtCAP), so using it as an example of OTA is wrong.

Omission: OTA was (and is) also used by Air Force in their EELV program, which is nothing but low value.

Semi-erroneous: My interpretation of her phrasing "The story is less clear" is that she thinks unlike COTS, Commercial Crew is not achieving low cost when compared to cost plus, if this interpretation is correct then this is also wrong given the huge cost difference between Orion and CC.

Twisted logic: The whole reason CC is delayed is because it's under FAR and NASA is imposing changes, now this delay is being used to prove OTA doesn't always work well and we should go back to FAR. Do you see how perverse this logic is?

MLD is Executive Directory of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration. That coalition consist mostly of "Old space" companies. See their members list: http://exploredeepspace.com/about-us/coalition-members/

"New space" companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, RocketLab, Vector, Virgin Galactic, Planet Labs, etc etc. are not members there.

It is in the best interest of the Coalition members to continue old-school contracting practices such as cost-plus under FAR. Because that is how they drain the most money out of the government. They have been doing this for 40+ years and it is very comfortable for them (financially speaking).
New approaches that do things more efficiently (financially speaking) are a direct threat to them.

As such I am not surprised whatsoever about MLD's statement. She gets paid to uphold and defend the best interests of the coalition members. So, IMO, her casting doubt on OTA, singling out the COTS and CCP examples, is all part of the strategy to uphold the old-school way of doing things.
« Last Edit: 02/22/2018 07:02 am by woods170 »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #194 on: 02/22/2018 10:47 am »
I thought that it was a productive meeting. It's kind of long to summarize. Regulation reform was more specific when the panelists commented on it. Essentially, there is a duplication of efforts where more than one department is in charge of the same thing. There was a recommendation to have the department of transportation in charge of a commercial launch except for the launch and landing part of a launch (which would continue being the FAA-AST, I believe). There was also a complaint that a license for one launch site doesn't work for other launch sites even if it only a few miles away. There was also some complaints about ITAR making american companies less competitive.

Does it require the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of Transportation, and a whole lot of other top level government officials to remove duplication between two departments, and reduce the number of steps for getting a launch license?

Has no one heard of delegation?

If it's a big issue that merits high-level and immediate action, then you create a commission, staff it with experts, and charge it with providing recommendations. Otherwise normal staff or tiger teams can handle these types of issues.

I mention this because 10 top-level government leaders only getting together every couple of months is not going to be able to provide a very fast velocity of change...

I support the concept of a NSC, but they need to get working groups diving deeply* into issues, and drive policy and programs, not develop them.  These 45 day reports are a step in that direction, but using Lightfoot's presentation as an example, it was so meta that it was actually a step backward... status quo minus the clarity of detail.  Unfortunately, this is all the deeper NSC will get if 'work' is only conducted at this level. 

If a thousand hours of effort aren't behind every hour this group collectively spends together, then it will just be circus for the masses.

* As an example, NASA should commission a public-private work group to lay out a 5-7 year return to the Moon 'to stay' plan that has architecture and launch vehicles as free parameters.  Goals  should be time line of 5 years, seven at worst, architecture that can be built upon, and cost within some cap or minimized generally.
« Last Edit: 02/22/2018 11:26 am by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #195 on: 02/22/2018 11:29 pm »
I thought that it was a productive meeting. It's kind of long to summarize. Regulation reform was more specific when the panelists commented on it. Essentially, there is a duplication of efforts where more than one department is in charge of the same thing. There was a recommendation to have the department of transportation in charge of a commercial launch except for the launch and landing part of a launch (which would continue being the FAA-AST, I believe). There was also a complaint that a license for one launch site doesn't work for other launch sites even if it only a few miles away. There was also some complaints about ITAR making american companies less competitive.

Does it require the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of Transportation, and a whole lot of other top level government officials to remove duplication between two departments, and reduce the number of steps for getting a launch license?

Has no one heard of delegation?

If it's a big issue that merits high-level and immediate action, then you create a commission, staff it with experts, and charge it with providing recommendations. Otherwise normal staff or tiger teams can handle these types of issues.

I mention this because 10 top-level government leaders only getting together every couple of months is not going to be able to provide a very fast velocity of change...

There is also work behind the scene. In any event, usually nobody cares about space. So nothing changes because it is not a priority. Obama talked about a space once in 8 years when he was at KSC in 2010 but that was the extent of his involvement. Biden had no involvement. I prefer a more involved administration than one that lets Congress run the show.
« Last Edit: 02/22/2018 11:30 pm by yg1968 »


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #197 on: 02/24/2018 12:10 am »
« Last Edit: 02/24/2018 12:15 am by yg1968 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #198 on: 02/24/2018 12:30 am »
I thought that it was a productive meeting. It's kind of long to summarize. Regulation reform was more specific when the panelists commented on it. Essentially, there is a duplication of efforts where more than one department is in charge of the same thing. There was a recommendation to have the department of transportation in charge of a commercial launch except for the launch and landing part of a launch (which would continue being the FAA-AST, I believe). There was also a complaint that a license for one launch site doesn't work for other launch sites even if it only a few miles away. There was also some complaints about ITAR making american companies less competitive.

Does it require the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of Transportation, and a whole lot of other top level government officials to remove duplication between two departments, and reduce the number of steps for getting a launch license?

Has no one heard of delegation?

If it's a big issue that merits high-level and immediate action, then you create a commission, staff it with experts, and charge it with providing recommendations. Otherwise normal staff or tiger teams can handle these types of issues.

I mention this because 10 top-level government leaders only getting together every couple of months is not going to be able to provide a very fast velocity of change...

There is also work behind the scene. In any event, usually nobody cares about space. So nothing changes because it is not a priority. Obama talked about a space once in 8 years when he was at KSC in 2010 but that was the extent of his involvement. Biden had no involvement. I prefer a more involved administration than one that lets Congress run the show.
Kind of reminds of a plate of "ham and eggs"... The chicken was "involved", but the pig was "committed"... So don't expect too much from the TV show...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #199 on: 02/24/2018 03:35 pm »
There is also work behind the scene.

Apparently not enough if the council has to be doing this much detail work. Unless, and I think this has merit, the administration really doesn't have a need to do much with NASA, for whatever reason, so "going slow" is OK.

Quote
In any event, usually nobody cares about space.

Don't call yourself a nobody!   ;)

Look, we all know there is a significant constituency for all things space, so yet, people do care. But as I've said in the past, we are at a junction today where it's unclear what the path is going forward for a number of things, such as human activity in space, and regardless who was elected President they were going to have to deal with it. And I'm not sure I'm seeing it acknowledged or dealt with - beyond speeches.

Quote
So nothing changes because it is not a priority.

Spending money is always a priority in Congress, so what you mean is that it's not a priority for this administration. And maybe that's so.

However there are always programs and initiatives that need attention, and whether they like it or not the SLS and Orion programs are currently programs without a defined need. So Trump has to decide (or force Congress to decide) whether they get cancelled for lack of need, or to get behind the funding of a long-term need. Other decisions, like planetary exploration and orbital sensors, he can defer and the impact won't be felt until he leaves office, so he'll be OK with inaction.

Quote
Obama talked about a space once in 8 years when he was at KSC in 2010 but that was the extent of his involvement.

?? Apparently you are forgetting the The Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee (aka "Augustine Committee"), whose goal was to ensure the nation is on "a vigorous and sustainable path to achieving its boldest aspirations in space."

And significant actions were taken as a result of their conclusions, so it's unfair to say that Obama was not involved with all-things NASA. Plus Obama spent political capital to get Commercial Crew funded, which took multiple years.

So I think you have an incomplete memory of the Obama years.

Quote
Biden had no involvement.

So?

Quote
I prefer a more involved administration than one that lets Congress run the show.

So far I'd argue that the Augustine Commission showed more Presidential involvement than what the NSC has been able to accomplish so far - it accomplished it's task in the first year of Obama's term, and by now in Obama's term his budget request had already reflected the changes he wanted. Trump has only changed a few regulations and talked about things other President's will manage to fruition.

In other words, talk is cheap, and we have yet to see any significant action out of the NSC or the Trump administration regarding NASA and space.
« Last Edit: 02/24/2018 08:16 pm by Coastal Ron »
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags:
 

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