Quote from: mike robel on 08/13/2009 02:05 amI hope someone will consolidate all their observations of the meeting today, and perhaps fill in their best guess of the COA analysis for those who did not have access to the days proceedings.What is COA?
I hope someone will consolidate all their observations of the meeting today, and perhaps fill in their best guess of the COA analysis for those who did not have access to the days proceedings.
Quote from: Lab Lemming on 08/13/2009 02:12 amQuote from: mike robel on 08/13/2009 02:05 amI hope someone will consolidate all their observations of the meeting today, and perhaps fill in their best guess of the COA analysis for those who did not have access to the days proceedings.What is COA?Sorry. COA = Course of Action, or I think in their words, "Option" COA is army speak.My best guess is its a combination of lunar and flexible path.Its directly shuttle derived vehicle for cargothis will happen just after 2020 after ISS deorbit and maybe a shuttle to 2015 extension.There is a big mystery as to crew to LEOmissing slides from Aug 5th AND today
Yeah, theres an article out today with NASA claiming that reconfiguring Orion for another launcher would cost 15 billion dollars.http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009908120316After the Augustine Commission folds, NASA and Bolden will still be around.
I think the most worrisome thing about today's developments is that NASA could be in for a short-term public black eye. If the POR is this far outside of the budget, and has been for this long, the fact that it has been allowed to go on so long and waste so much money could become a very public issue that has no upside for NASA.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 08/13/2009 01:43 amI think the most worrisome thing about today's developments is that NASA could be in for a short-term public black eye. If the POR is this far outside of the budget, and has been for this long, the fact that it has been allowed to go on so long and waste so much money could become a very public issue that has no upside for NASA.Any chance they can hang it around a certain former administrator's neck and detach themselves from it?
Quote from: mikegi on 08/13/2009 01:40 amIt may be obvious to everyone else here ... but what exactly is the commission referring to when they say "Commercial Crew Transport"? The video stream wasn't clear and I thought that meant EELV. When I look at the Crawley PPT on nasa.gov, it has something else:Commercial Crew Transport Characteristics:LOX/RP-1 first stageLOX/RP-1 upper stagePerformance:LEO: 8 - 10 mTIs this a generic description or are they referring to something specific that already exists? It sounds like they're assuming a completely commercial launcher, including a commercial capsule (or whatever private industry comes up with).ThanksThose specs sound awfully familiar:http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
It may be obvious to everyone else here ... but what exactly is the commission referring to when they say "Commercial Crew Transport"? The video stream wasn't clear and I thought that meant EELV. When I look at the Crawley PPT on nasa.gov, it has something else:Commercial Crew Transport Characteristics:LOX/RP-1 first stageLOX/RP-1 upper stagePerformance:LEO: 8 - 10 mTIs this a generic description or are they referring to something specific that already exists? It sounds like they're assuming a completely commercial launcher, including a commercial capsule (or whatever private industry comes up with).Thanks
It may be obvious to everyone else here ... but what exactly is the commission referring to when they say "Commercial Crew Transport"? The video stream wasn't clear and I thought that meant EELV. When I look at the Crawley PPT on nasa.gov, it has something else:Commercial Crew Transport Characteristics:LOX/RP-1 first stageLOX/RP-1 upper stagePerformance:LEO: 8 - 10 mTIs this a generic description or are they referring to something specific that already exists? It sounds like they're assuming a completely commercial launcher, including a commercial capsule (or whatever private industry comes up with).
The findings mean the Obama administration, which created the commission, faces a stark test of its commitment to pursue expensive human space exploration efforts despite ballooning federal deficits.
I really want to hear what(if anything) Griffin has to say after today.. Does he come out fighting.. or realize his battle is lost.
I'm confused about how the crew taxi fits into a mission. Is it:1) Crew Taxi takes crew to LEO2) Taxi docks with previously launched unmanned HLV Orion+SM3) Orion heads off to (somewhere)4) Orion returns to LEO and docks with Crew Taxi5) Crew Taxi reenters and lands/splashesOr is it:1) Crew Taxi takes crew to LEO2) Taxi docks with previously launched unmanned HLV Orion+SM3) Taxi is disposed of4) Orion heads off to (somewhere)5) Orion returns and reenters
Quote from: mr_magoo on 08/13/2009 01:02 amYeah, theres an article out today with NASA claiming that reconfiguring Orion for another launcher would cost 15 billion dollars.http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009908120316After the Augustine Commission folds, NASA and Bolden will still be around.Who needs Orion? If it really cost that much to put it on a different launcher.. that is a GREAT reason to kill it and buy the capability commercially.
Quote from: Alpha Control on 08/13/2009 01:29 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 08/13/2009 01:23 amQuote from: simon-th on 08/13/2009 12:57 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 08/13/2009 12:49 amThink about it. These guys, and girls, sat a a table today and "decided" to end three or four or more of the most significant multi-billion dollar NASA contracts in a generation (awarded to three or four or five of the largest U.S. government/defense contractors). No, they didn't just "decide". They had weeks of analysis done, especially costing by NASA and an independent outside group which assessed costs and schedules. And the POR just doesn't fit the budget OR even an enhanced budget.Look, I have a library filled with reports from similar blue-ribbon committees, every one backed by "weeks of analysis", and several that included members of this very committee. (Sally Ride's 1987 committee had U.S. astronauts walking on the Moon in 2000).Few of these reports are worth the paper they are printed on. - Ed KyleBut Ed, isn't that really the fault of the recipients of the reports? They say to the committee members "Thanks very much for your hard work', and then move on to something else. I don't think Ed was blaming the writers of the reports- you're missing the point.However Jim is on the money, as usual. Previous studies of 'where to go from here' have taken a status quo of STS, and suggested some form of beyond-LEO expansion. It was easy to say 'thanks but no thanks' and file it in the bottom drawer, carrying on as before.The difference now is that NASA is currently on a path which is broken. Something MUST change. A huge budget increase for both development and operations would help, but there's still the issue of schedule- Orion IOC coming after ISS deorbit, which is the current baseline, and clearly makes no sense at all.The previous studies failed to change anything because they required budget increases.The Augustine review needs to change things because the current plan requires budget increases.The moral of the story is- reports don't get ignored, requests for budget increases do.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 08/13/2009 01:23 amQuote from: simon-th on 08/13/2009 12:57 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 08/13/2009 12:49 amThink about it. These guys, and girls, sat a a table today and "decided" to end three or four or more of the most significant multi-billion dollar NASA contracts in a generation (awarded to three or four or five of the largest U.S. government/defense contractors). No, they didn't just "decide". They had weeks of analysis done, especially costing by NASA and an independent outside group which assessed costs and schedules. And the POR just doesn't fit the budget OR even an enhanced budget.Look, I have a library filled with reports from similar blue-ribbon committees, every one backed by "weeks of analysis", and several that included members of this very committee. (Sally Ride's 1987 committee had U.S. astronauts walking on the Moon in 2000).Few of these reports are worth the paper they are printed on. - Ed KyleBut Ed, isn't that really the fault of the recipients of the reports? They say to the committee members "Thanks very much for your hard work', and then move on to something else.
Quote from: simon-th on 08/13/2009 12:57 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 08/13/2009 12:49 amThink about it. These guys, and girls, sat a a table today and "decided" to end three or four or more of the most significant multi-billion dollar NASA contracts in a generation (awarded to three or four or five of the largest U.S. government/defense contractors). No, they didn't just "decide". They had weeks of analysis done, especially costing by NASA and an independent outside group which assessed costs and schedules. And the POR just doesn't fit the budget OR even an enhanced budget.Look, I have a library filled with reports from similar blue-ribbon committees, every one backed by "weeks of analysis", and several that included members of this very committee. (Sally Ride's 1987 committee had U.S. astronauts walking on the Moon in 2000).Few of these reports are worth the paper they are printed on. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 08/13/2009 12:49 amThink about it. These guys, and girls, sat a a table today and "decided" to end three or four or more of the most significant multi-billion dollar NASA contracts in a generation (awarded to three or four or five of the largest U.S. government/defense contractors). No, they didn't just "decide". They had weeks of analysis done, especially costing by NASA and an independent outside group which assessed costs and schedules. And the POR just doesn't fit the budget OR even an enhanced budget.
Think about it. These guys, and girls, sat a a table today and "decided" to end three or four or more of the most significant multi-billion dollar NASA contracts in a generation (awarded to three or four or five of the largest U.S. government/defense contractors).
Quote from: Danny Dot on 08/12/2009 06:48 pmGood point by Norm on "what is that projected budget". I recall very clearly the original vision was no increase in the budget is needed. Is the top line Mike Griffin's wish list for future money. Now some good questions on projected growth of cost need to be expected.Danny Deger Original plan was to increase NASA's budget by some $2.5-3.0bn per year to pay for this new program.But it simply never happened. Nobody in the White House, Senate, House nor OMB ever put the increased funding on the table even for a discussion, let alone for a vote.Ross.
Good point by Norm on "what is that projected budget". I recall very clearly the original vision was no increase in the budget is needed. Is the top line Mike Griffin's wish list for future money. Now some good questions on projected growth of cost need to be expected.Danny Deger
Quote from: kch on 08/13/2009 01:50 amQuote from: mikegi on 08/13/2009 01:40 amIt may be obvious to everyone else here ... but what exactly is the commission referring to when they say "Commercial Crew Transport"? The video stream wasn't clear and I thought that meant EELV. When I look at the Crawley PPT on nasa.gov, it has something else:Commercial Crew Transport Characteristics:LOX/RP-1 first stageLOX/RP-1 upper stagePerformance:LEO: 8 - 10 mTIs this a generic description or are they referring to something specific that already exists? It sounds like they're assuming a completely commercial launcher, including a commercial capsule (or whatever private industry comes up with).ThanksThose specs sound awfully familiar:http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.phpWasn't there mention recently of SpaceX applying to make Dragon an official EELV? Is that what the panel is driving at, some secret meeting with elon about secret pending news . .
I was not under the impression that there was a consensus to kill Orion. Sally Ride mentionned that it might be too heavy. But nothing was actually decided on Orion as far as I know.