-EELV, which destroys NASA's pork barrel politics, and leaves it as a "normal" space agency, with a budget to match. It would turn NASA into an American version of ESA or RSA, just another science agency.
Remember what DIRECT is, and always has been. It is the most efficient design of a SDLV possible that complies with the NASA Space Authorization Act of 2005, which mandated a SDLV.
Quote from: SpacexULA on 12/08/2009 07:44 pm-EELV, which destroys NASA's pork barrel politics, and leaves it as a "normal" space agency, with a budget to match. It would turn NASA into an American version of ESA or RSA, just another science agency.This is intriging, and I want to discuss this point further. According to Clongton (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19548.msg513150#msg513150) QuoteRemember what DIRECT is, and always has been. It is the most efficient design of a SDLV possible that complies with the NASA Space Authorization Act of 2005, which mandated a SDLV. NASA is at crossroads. Should they scrap the shuttle infrastructure and harware, and start "afresh" with EELVs ? we suppose - DIRECT efforts doesn't work - the shuttle workforce / tooling is disposed off after 2012 - manned spaceflight continues despite that what I want to discuss here the consequences of such move. For example- NASA centers closed- LC-39 mothballed Etc.
Who said this ?Eliminating Ares 1 and 5 and all shuttle infrastructure could save NASA future costs that could eventually be applied towards exploration by significantly reducing the workforce and fixed infrastructure costs. This approach would require “commercial” crew transportation for ISS and exploration missions, and would likely require propellant depots to compensate for the smaller commercial launch vehicles. This was not politically feasible in 2005, but perhaps could be today.Doug Stanley apparently http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/files/real-options.doc
I've just fell across this comment http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17671.msg499295#msg499295Quote from: marsavian on 11/03/2009 07:22 pmWho said this ?Eliminating Ares 1 and 5 and all shuttle infrastructure could save NASA future costs that could eventually be applied towards exploration by significantly reducing the workforce and fixed infrastructure costs. This approach would require “commercial” crew transportation for ISS and exploration missions, and would likely require propellant depots to compensate for the smaller commercial launch vehicles. This was not politically feasible in 2005, but perhaps could be today.Doug Stanley apparently http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/files/real-options.doc I think we are heading toward such solution. As much as I like and respect Direct, I think the shuttle infrastructure has to go. It's going to be brutal, to say the least. But there will be benefits in the long term. A book worth reading this days is Tom Heppenheimer "the space shuttle decision". Notably chapters 8 and 9. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/contents.htmSpace station and space shuttle, LEO taxis, outsider ELV versus NASA heavy lift, end of HSF... we are back to 1971. Really !
Politically, if it remains in the sub-committee's hands, there's a chance nothing changes, as they all have centers to be concerned about (votes & dollars flowing).If Congress as a whole wants to save money, to heck with jobs, then it's possible
1. Move all of JSC control functions to KSC. This will improve synergy between the launch and control teams as well as cut down on costs.2. Move JPL from California to JSC. First of all, if I had it my way, I would re-organize JPL and rename it because JPL hasn't met a budget or timeline in ages. MSL comes to mind. Operations costs in California or ridiculously high and Texas is cheaper.
Quote from: RocketScientist327 on 12/09/2009 01:58 pm1. Move all of JSC control functions to KSC. This will improve synergy between the launch and control teams as well as cut down on costs.Non plausible and ridiculous. Shows complete lack of understanding the processes in launch and flight ops.1. There is little synergy between flight ops and launch ops. Are there any other spacecraft control centers at the launch site. No. The USAF has them in CO (Buckley and Falcon), CA, DC, NM, etc. NASA unmanned at JPL, GSFC, APL, etc. NOAA in MD. Commercial spacecraft are all over the place.
1. Move all of JSC control functions to KSC. This will improve synergy between the launch and control teams as well as cut down on costs.
Agreed. The synergy between spacecraft engineering and spacecraft ops is much more important. If JSC ops were moved to KSC it would improve synergy with the launch team but the loss of synergy with spacecraft engineering would be devastating.
Antares,I'm not sure you're quite comparing like-with-like.
Quote from: RocketScientist327 on 12/09/2009 01:58 pm1. Move all of JSC control functions to KSC. This will improve synergy between the launch and control teams as well as cut down on costs.2. Move JPL from California to JSC. First of all, if I had it my way, I would re-organize JPL and rename it because JPL hasn't met a budget or timeline in ages. MSL comes to mind. Operations costs in California or ridiculously high and Texas is cheaper. Non plausible and ridiculous. Shows complete lack of understanding the processes in launch and flight ops.1. There is little synergy between flight ops and launch ops. Are there any other spacecraft control centers at the launch site. No. The USAF has them in CO (Buckley and Falcon), CA, DC, NM, etc. NASA unmanned at JPL, GSFC, APL, etc. NOAA in MD. Commercial spacecraft are all over the place.
2. JSC knows nothing about unmanned spacecraft, cost control or schedule either (See STS annd ISS development). JPL is still a jewel for NASA and ranks as one of the highest centers to keep.
FYI, APL is not a NASA center.
1. I whole heartedly disagree to your idea that to move launch ops from JSC to KSC is ridiculous. NASA is too stupid to realize it is the chicken with it's head on the chopping block. 2. Moreover, it is not ridiculous to want to integrate vehicle processing, launching, and flight operations to a single location. If there is as little synergy as you say; I would say that is part of the NASA "culture" which is horrendous and needs to be changed... yesterday. I am not saying processing, launching, and ops need to go drink beer every night; but they do need to find better processes and ways to conduct business. Being closer together helps facilitae the process. The way things are done now, despite what people think, is not as efficient as it could/should be.Finally, a point which you complete fail to address is astronomical cost of launch processing, launching, and operations. Inevitably in the move from JSC to KSC jobs would be reviewed and then be cut, restructured, or otherwise made more fiscally responsible. 3. JSC is significantly more responsible when coming to its budget. Studying Orion development, they were mostly on time and on budget until Constellation kept changing the requirements. That same fiscal responsibility needs to rub off on the folks at JPL. I agree JPL is a jewel and I do appreciate the science, it is just too bad we cannot afford that jewel right now. And if we do not act to restructure JPL, you change "right now" to "anymore". 4. Quote from: JimFYI, APL is not a NASA center.Is this why APL is head's and tails above all the NASA centers? There is something here to be learned from this.
...I pray to God I am wrong but I have a sneaking suspicion (damn near validated)
While I have come to agree with you that moving JSC operations to KSC is not currently possible, during Mercury launch and spacecraft operations were all conducted at Cape Canaveral. I think the entire Mercury-Redstone flight was controlled from the launch pad control center, while I also think that Mercury-Atlas flights were controlled first from the launch control center, and then it shifted to another facility at Cape Canaveral.Therefore, there is no reason that both operations could not be controlled from KSC, it would "merely" require the construction of additional control facilities. Whether launch and spacecraft operations could be conducted from the same facility, I don't really know. However, it looks like there is a lot of functional duplication and instrumentation.I suppose there is no reason while JSC could not assume control of launch operations either, after all the "clear the tower" shift of responsibility was just one that was convienent at the time. It could equally have been done when the spacecraft attained orbit and dumped the last stage.50 years ago, it may have made more sense operationally to have the two facilities at the same location, but politics caused the operations to be seperated for manned spaceflight between KSC and JSC. Now today, however much sense it may or may not make to collocate the two control teams, there is no political and certainly no fiscal reason (short term at least) to do so.
While I have come to agree with you that moving JSC operations to KSC is not currently possible, during Mercury launch and spacecraft operations were all conducted at Cape Canaveral. I think the entire Mercury-Redstone flight was controlled from the launch pad control center, while I also think that Mercury-Atlas flights were controlled first from the launch control center, and then it shifted to another facility at Cape Canaveral.
I suppose there is no reason while JSC could not assume control of launch operations either, after all the "clear the tower" shift of responsibility was just one that was convienent at the time. It could equally have been done when the spacecraft attained orbit and dumped the last stage.
The Commission recommends a complete overhaul of NASA’s structure and culture, with both a more “integrated” approach to science needs and systems development, as well as transitioning ten NASA facilities along the model of the federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs), which are generally managed in an open, competitive environment, under contract to a university, a non-profit, or a for-profit organization. They tend to be more entrepreneurial in their culture, with greater personnel flexibility.
but always... ALWAYS... have a business mindset at the top.
The greatest thing we have learned is that engineers and astronauts cannot manage big-time projects and budgets. They are almost always late, they are always over budget, and many get canceled.
I do not subscribe to the "NASA Jobs Program" or any government jobs program. That is silly.
The sooner this mentality is put to the weigh side the sooner NASA will become great again.
2. The point that vehicle processing, launching, and flight operations have little synergy has nothing to do with NASA culture. I gave you examples that it is not. Being close would not facilitate any processes because they are not related. Moving JSC to KSC would not reduce any engineering jobs, because there is no duplication. Operating a spacecraft is not the same as launching one. Having separate teams launching and operating spacecraft is industry standard. The operations personnel have planning and training to deal with, while launch team are dealing with the hardware. Manning a console for launch and for orbit ops are not the same tasks. There are different skills and they concentrate on different areas. Also sitting on console is a small part of the job. I did not address cost savings because there are none in this foolish idea. The point which you fail to address is showing the actual personnel reduction that would occur.
Put another way, WTFIGO?
If there are no synergies, then it ought to be considered for outsourcing. Flight operations can happen anywhere with good staff and good comms. Bangalore?
Quote from: alexterrell on 12/20/2009 01:33 pmIf there are no synergies, then it ought to be considered for outsourcing. Flight operations can happen anywhere with good staff and good comms. Bangalore?If you are being sarcastic, I agree. If you are being serious, then no. There are massive synergies, yes, but they are between flight ops & spacecraft engineering. Unless the Indian Space Agency is designing & building your spacecraft, then Flight Ops in Bangalore doesn't make any sense.Paul
Quote from: tankmodeler on 12/21/2009 01:50 pmQuote from: alexterrell on 12/20/2009 01:33 pmIf there are no synergies, then it ought to be considered for outsourcing. Flight operations can happen anywhere with good staff and good comms. Bangalore?If you are being sarcastic, I agree. If you are being serious, then no. There are massive synergies, yes, but they are between flight ops & spacecraft engineering. Unless the Indian Space Agency is designing & building your spacecraft, then Flight Ops in Bangalore doesn't make any sense.PaulWithout doing a process map, or working there for a few years, I can't tell whether there are synergies or not. Jim claimed not.
If there are synergies, then co-locating should be looked at.
If there aren't synergies, then outsourcing should be looked at (Note, I'm saying looked at, not done. There are plenty of other reasons not to out source).
Quote from: alexterrell on 12/22/2009 06:05 pmIf there are synergies, then co-locating should be looked at.As I, Jim & Jorge have said, there are defininte synergies, but they are between Flight Ops & Spacecraft Engineering, which are, indeed, co-located.QuoteIf there aren't synergies, then outsourcing should be looked at (Note, I'm saying looked at, not done. There are plenty of other reasons not to out source).Again, if Spacecraft Engineering is outsourced, then outsourcing Flight Ops does make sense, but not at all otherwise.Paul
If we got to the stage of a daily launch of a standard payload, then we should review the above. (Launch from factory?)
If we got to the stage of a daily launch of a standard payload, then we should review the above.
I'd very much like to charge NASA $X,000/day for a short project to confirm what you say; but I'll probably have to take your words for it
Quote from: tankmodeler on 12/24/2009 06:29 pmQuote from: alexterrell on 12/22/2009 06:05 pmIf there are synergies, then co-locating should be looked at.As I, Jim & Jorge have said, there are defininte synergies, but they are between Flight Ops & Spacecraft Engineering, which are, indeed, co-located.QuoteIf there aren't synergies, then outsourcing should be looked at (Note, I'm saying looked at, not done. There are plenty of other reasons not to out source).Again, if Spacecraft Engineering is outsourced, then outsourcing Flight Ops does make sense, but not at all otherwise.PaulI'd very much like to charge NASA $X,000/day for a short project to confirm what you say; but I'll probably have to take your words for it Of course, Sea Launch and Arianspace are good examples of launch being far away from every thing else.
Quote from: alexterrell on 12/25/2009 09:06 pmIf we got to the stage of a daily launch of a standard payload, then we should review the above. (Launch from factory?)More than 300 launches per year = RLV. Nothing else is anywhere near as cost-effective in that launch frequency range.
But (big "but" here) we are nowhere near that sort of flight model. Not even close. Until flying in space is literally as safe & as easy as getting on a 787 & flying to India or Australia from New York (i.e. a long , significant trip, but still regular business) then there will be a need for separate flight and launch ops teams.Paul
It is possible that manufacturing of expendables (especially with technological advances in manufacturing and materials) could get so cheap and reproducible (reliable) as to make refurbishment not cost effective.
Syringes are used at incredibly high rates, yet expendables beat reusables long ago due to operational and logistics reasons. The technologies of reusables are far from proven ... and until they are, expendables (with a different kind of technology thrust) have some chance of beating them out even at high flight rates.
Quote from: mars.is.wet on 12/26/2009 02:00 pmSyringes are used at incredibly high rates, yet expendables beat reusables long ago due to operational and logistics reasons. The technologies of reusables are far from proven ... and until they are, expendables (with a different kind of technology thrust) have some chance of beating them out even at high flight rates.There is a rather large difference between syringes & spacecraft...Without being flippant, a better comparison is between aircraft & spacecraft. We do not use expendable aircraft for frequent flights. I would think that at 300 flights a year, the aircraft model becomes more likely. At 50 a year, I can see expendables being preferred, but at 300, I'm thinking the reusable model will have asserted itself. Somethere in there is an inflection point and the business/economic model will favour the more expensive reusable over the simpler expendable. Exactly where that is, I don't know, but I'd bet it's between those two numbers.Paul
However, it does not make the impracticable practical ... and practical reusable spacecraft have not been show to be anywhere near economical yet despite a number of government and private attempts. I estimate that we have poured close to $200B in today's dollars into reusable systems (counting everything from Space Access to Kistler to the Space Shuttle and SLI) and don't have an existence proof yet.
Quote from: Idol Revolver on 12/25/2009 09:11 pmQuote from: alexterrell on 12/25/2009 09:06 pmIf we got to the stage of a daily launch of a standard payload, then we should review the above. (Launch from factory?)More than 300 launches per year = RLV. Nothing else is anywhere near as cost-effective in that launch frequency range.while I might agree with you based on my own work, this is far from a closed issue.http://web.mit.edu/spacearchitects/Archive/Reusable%20v%20Expendable%20Launch%20Vehicles.pdfIt is possible that manufacturing of expendables (especially with technological advances in manufacturing and materials) could get so cheap and reproducible (reliable) as to make refurbishment not cost effective. Wertz tries to prove it, and provides a good analysis with good sensitivity.
Quote from: mars.is.wet on 12/26/2009 04:57 pmHowever, it does not make the impracticable practical ... and practical reusable spacecraft have not been show to be anywhere near economical yet despite a number of government and private attempts. I estimate that we have poured close to $200B in today's dollars into reusable systems (counting everything from Space Access to Kistler to the Space Shuttle and SLI) and don't have an existence proof yet.I personally don't think reusables will be economical any time soon at all. I actually can't think of a commercial need for enough launches to make reusables cross that inflection, wherever it may be, even down at 50 or so launches a year. And it will be commercial need that drives up the flight rate enough to make reusables even remotely economical. The one possible chink in that might be if the US Gov't goes the way of fuel depots & then openly competes to fill it. And even then, I'm not sure if enough fuel will be needed to go away from expendables.
Wow. A guy running a company (Microcosm) trying to make money by selling people on the concept of mass produced expendable launch vehicles came up with an analysis supporting mass produced expendable launch vehicles? :-)...~Jon
Quote from: jongoff on 12/30/2009 05:37 amWow. A guy running a company (Microcosm) trying to make money by selling people on the concept of mass produced expendable launch vehicles came up with an analysis supporting mass produced expendable launch vehicles? :-)~JonWell Jon, maybe he started the company _after_ he completed this analysis.
Wow. A guy running a company (Microcosm) trying to make money by selling people on the concept of mass produced expendable launch vehicles came up with an analysis supporting mass produced expendable launch vehicles? :-)~Jon
That is true of many people and organizations in this business -- and many, many other fields too.Being able to see the whole tapestry is a surprisingly unique and rare skill.
Good story Jon.Remind me to wait in the next State over from either of those facilities though
That is true of many people and organizations in this business -- and many, many other fields too.Being able to see the whole tapestry is a surprisingly unique and rare skill.Ross.
Quote from: alexterrell on 12/25/2009 09:06 pmIf we got to the stage of a daily launch of a standard payload, then we should review the above. (Launch from factory?)As Jorge & Jim have said even in this case, it doesn't make any sense to have & launch ops in the same place. I'm not sure what it is you think you'll save by having the two together?At 300+ launches a year and, as has been said, probably flying an RLV, you actually will have probably eliminated our current concept of launch ops entirely and are doing nothing except flying a regularly scheduled service. At that point you are more like running an airline and there is nothing but flight ops with the Spacecraft Engineering boiling down to the equivalent of being the factory reps consulting to an airline.But (big "but" here) we are nowhere near that sort of flight model. Not even close. Until flying in space is literally as safe & as easy as getting on a 787 & flying to India or Australia from New York (i.e. a long , significant trip, but still regular business) then there will be a need for separate flight and launch ops teams.Paul
Quote from: GncDude on 12/30/2009 06:47 pmQuote from: jongoff on 12/30/2009 05:37 amWow. A guy running a company (Microcosm) trying to make money by selling people on the concept of mass produced expendable launch vehicles came up with an analysis supporting mass produced expendable launch vehicles? :-)~JonWell Jon, maybe he started the company _after_ he completed this analysis.The paper is 16 years younger than the company. BTW, snarkiness aside, I actually have a lot of respect for Wertz and Microcosm. I was just trying to point out that for someone who has been focusing on one part of the problem, it may be easier to see solutions for that corner of the design space, while not seeing obvious solutions for other corners. ~Jon
IMHO, far too many US space enthusiasts -- both LegacySpace and NewSpace -- ignore the unavoidable international component because it falls outside what they are working on day-to-day.
Quote from: Bill White on 12/31/2009 01:36 amIMHO, far too many US space enthusiasts -- both LegacySpace and NewSpace -- ignore the unavoidable international component because it falls outside what they are working on day-to-day.Or because they have painful experiences of wasted efforts and time on things like ISS.It is very painful to take an engineering project that you think should have taken 7 years and turn it into a multi-decade group hug designed as a (very successful) experiment in foreign policy.Sometimes the answers are not blindness. Sometimes it is seeing too much of the truth.
I don't hear that criticism for supporters of RLV's. Just sayin'.
I think that it is a murky area, and Wertz put the paper out there for the same reason I suggested it ... the discussion is SO unbalanced in favor of how obviously superior RLVs will be that his analysis tries to balance the scale.I don't find him a supporter as much as someone taking the road less traveled. And he did a good job exploring that trade space.True believers refuse to look outside of the answer they have already arrived at. Wertz is not that.