Well, it may not be relevant to the release of the BAH, but Capitol Hill was just evacuated a little while ago due to an earthquake in central Virginia...I was at the farm and thought a very large helicopter might be flying low overhead. Might be a delay in congressional response to the Report summary, hehe.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 08/23/2011 06:46 pmWell, it may not be relevant to the release of the BAH, but Capitol Hill was just evacuated a little while ago due to an earthquake in central Virginia...I was at the farm and thought a very large helicopter might be flying low overhead. Might be a delay in congressional response to the Report summary, hehe.Hope it wasn't one of those black helicop
nothing like they did in my office in DC, where things actually fell of of shelves, I'm told.
The returning theme to the BAH summary I kept getting...
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/23/2011 09:19 pmThe returning theme to the BAH summary I kept getting... Yes, my poor old brain would appreciate a metasummary of the summary. I.e., what implications does it have for the as-yet notional SLS program?
Quote from: ChileVerde on 08/23/2011 09:28 pmQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/23/2011 09:19 pmThe returning theme to the BAH summary I kept getting... Yes, my poor old brain would appreciate a metasummary of the summary. I.e., what implications does it have for the as-yet notional SLS program?That there is 0 trust in any cost/schedule or technical design "performance" targets after 3 years out. So the 70MT launcher may end up being a 60MT launcher, cost twice as much and take until 2020 to launch. Or it could launch earlier, cost less and be able to launch 80MT. But which has historiclly been the case?P.S- Even SpaceX's F9 has been of the second case, late, cost more and with less performance than advertised. why do we think that NASA will do better than highly succesful commercial developer like SpaceX?
In plain English, what the frick does this mean ?, sounds like yet another delaying tatic, am I right ?
Quote from: JohnF on 08/23/2011 10:28 pmIn plain English, what the frick does this mean ?, sounds like yet another delaying tatic, am I right ?Might be, or a way to cast doubt on what NASA has provided to give congress enough doubt to force a delay by having NASA produce more tangible information to reviewed by them (BAH) and/or another party.
Recommendation: The ICA Team recommends that HEO/ESD use the occasion of a selection of a new SLS architecture to establish a common practice across Programs for generating cost and schedule estimates; establish documentation standards for BOEs; and create and disseminate BOE, cost, and schedule estimate templates to Programs.
Quote from: robertross on 08/23/2011 10:35 pmQuote from: JohnF on 08/23/2011 10:28 pmIn plain English, what the frick does this mean ?, sounds like yet another delaying tatic, am I right ?Might be, or a way to cast doubt on what NASA has provided to give congress enough doubt to force a delay by having NASA produce more tangible information to reviewed by them (BAH) and/or another party.BAH comment about the SLS data is that it was basiclly appropriate for a pre Phase A program.
One that hasn't any detailed plans. You won't have usable high quality cost estimate data until the next milestone which would probably be this time next year, once the contractor proposals, contractors put on contract and other involved parties input their detailed costing data for the archetecture has all been submitted to NASA.
Due to unjustified, sometimes substantial, assumed future cost savings; the ICA Team views each Program’s estimate as optimistic. Reserve levels were not based on a quantitative risk analysis and do not cover each Program’s Protect Scenario. Furthermore, each Protect Scenario excludes estimating uncertainty and unknown-unknown risks, which history indicates are major sources of cost growth on programs. Due to procurement of items still in development and large cost risks in the out years, NASA cannot have full confidence in the estimates for long-term planning.