Author Topic: Augustine Commission Thread 2  (Read 65386 times)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #40 on: 06/04/2009 11:40 pm »
If I'm reading the Commission's charter correctly, they are not interested in listening to the opposing arguments of a couple of disputants. If anyone goes in effectively saying "here's my side of the story" then they have already lost.

No. What needs to be done is for the presenters to line up all their ducks in a row and then show them off. Effectively saying "This is what we believe is the direction we should be going, this is why we believe that, and we think this approach best serves that direction". No mention of the "competition" because then you're wasting some of your precious 30 minutes talking about the other guy. Might as well hand it to them.

The presenters need to carefully examine what they propose, break it down to the basics, remove all "someday we can do <this>", align their objectives with the very clear objectives of the Commission, make their case for pursuing HSF their way in as efficient and professional manner as possible, answer questions, thank them for their time and leave them with carefully choreographed and well documented material to digest. If I read it right, this 30 minutes doesn't decide much except help to prioritize which groups will receive follow-up attention. No decisions will be forthcoming from this 30 minutes. What this 30 minutes amounts to is the one chance to make a good first impression. Decisions will be made in conference meetings later. If the presenting team is lucky, they may be asked to return to discuss details of their proposal for the benefit of the Commission.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #41 on: 06/04/2009 11:48 pm »
If I'm reading the Commission's charter correctly, they are not interested in listening to the opposing arguments of a couple of disputants. If anyone goes in effectively saying "here's my side of the story" then they have already lost.

No. What needs to be done is for the presenters to line up all their ducks in a row and then show them off. Effectively saying "This is what we believe is the direction we should be going, this is why we believe that, and we think this approach best serves that direction". No mention of the "competition" because then you're wasting some of your precious 30 minutes talking about the other guy. Might as well hand it to them.

The presenters need to carefully examine what they propose, break it down to the basics, remove all "someday we can do <this>", align their objectives with the very clear objectives of the Commission, make their case for pursuing HSF their way in as efficient and professional manner as possible, answer questions, thank them for their time and leave them with carefully choreographed and well documented material to digest. If I read it right, this 30 minutes doesn't decide much except help to prioritize which groups will receive follow-up attention. No decisions will be forthcoming from this 30 minutes. What this 30 minutes amounts to is the one chance to make a good first impression. Decisions will be made in conference meetings later. If the presenting team is lucky, they may be asked to return to discuss details of their proposal for the benefit of the Commission.

Yes! Well done!

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #42 on: 06/05/2009 12:03 am »

Heavy lift was a generic term. 

Sure, why not.  Hey maybe the Wright brothers should have never tried to fly until the 747 was invented......

They certainly should not have tried to operate a transatlantic airline with their first or even second or third airplane.

A lunar base needs routine lifting of large masses to LEO. It cannot be very expensive, because then it simply cannot be done with the budget NASA is allocated. You are just building ruins.

Quote
I am not suggesting Apollo v2.0, and if you actually read what I've posted, nor am I saying the current architecture is the best way to execute the program with today's budget, commercial capabililities and technilogical capabilities.  However, saying we shouldn't do anything until we have better capabilities is foolish.  For example:

1.  Who decided when those capabilities are "better" and it's now time to go somewhere?

2.  How develops those capabilities if we don't go anywhere with what are technology can offer today?  They're not just going to grow on trees and there is absolutely no guarantee someone is just going to wake up one morning and say "ah, while I was sleeping it occurred to me how to build a SSTO that does not have to be all prop, can carry an actual payload, is incredibly easy to maintain and operate and is economical."

This conversation has become really pointless so let the thread get back to the topic at hand. 

You're thinking exactly like me. No operable SSTO RLV will spring from the forehead of a master designer overnight.

You only get progress if you
1) Do basic research (The NACA side of NASA and small cheap simple tech demonstrators)
2) You reward progress (You buy the improved services from the companies that produce them, this means competition)

When it's "good enough" to really go to the moon and stay is decided by the budget and reliability chiefly.

This commission is not just an ESAS review. If it costs ten billion a year to support a lunar base and there's a 5% chance of total disaster every year, then maybe it's not a good idea to do it, but we should improve the ways to do it. Everybody's itching for an Apollo rerun. Patience.

If there are many launchers, you can do improvements by bringing more advanced stuff online with less risk.

The key here is improvability of the whole system.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #43 on: 06/05/2009 12:26 am »
meiza,

You are all over the place and being a bit incoherent and not really reading posts, but reacting.  This conversation is over. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #44 on: 06/05/2009 12:38 am »
30 minutes???  Do you find that insulting?
My understading is that everybody get 30 minutes.  Having been in other panels, that is typical.  But you get to leave behind written material.

Fair enough then.  Just seems very short for any organization within or outside NASA to give a full and proper presentation.  I suppose there is always the chance that they can choose to run longer with anyone that is presenting. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #45 on: 06/05/2009 12:40 am »
Now, for my personal opinion.  I don't think he'd personally like DIRECT for many of the same reasons why I'm lukewarm.  I think you could convince him that DIRECT is better than Ares, but I don't know if he'd buy that it really is the best direction for the country.  I don't.  It may be the best shuttle-derived direction, but that's a different story.  That said, Jeff is a lot more pragmatic than I am.  So who knows.  Just saying that many of your standard arguments aren't likely to hold a lot of water with someone from my corner of the industry. 

~Jon

What does that mean exactly?  NASA (i.e. "the man") is keeping you down?  Not to be rude that's just how it kind of came off.

I wasn't trying to come off that way at all.  I guess I was just saying that based on having talked with or listened to Jeff on many occasions, my guess is that he'd be more inclined to the view that NASA shouldn't be building and operating new launch systems now that the commercial sector (which includes ULA) are capable of launching stuff.  That they should focus on in-space systems, and doing the R&D necessary to really open up space for commercial development.

Not "NASA is keeping me down" at all, just that NASA's HSF program hasn't been operating in a way that provides a very good ROI for the American people.

Quote
I don't really subscribe to the belief (yet) that private industry is ready to take on this role and NASA can just be abolished or downgraded to a pure R&D agency.  I strongly believe there is still a role to play.  Are there things NASA could do better to work with commercial space?  Absolutely.  I also think commercial space to some degree is trying to sprint before they have even crawled but with time and a creating a market I have no doubt it will get there and eventually NASA should turn all LEO ops over to private industry.

Hey, I actually agree with you (and I'm sure Jeff would as well).  I *used* to wish NASA would just go away.  I grew out of it.  I still think that the way NASA does things is often almost orthogonal to what it ought to be doing, but that doesn't mean I think it doesn't have an important role it *could* and *should* play if it were willing to.

The point is that NASA should be focusing on helping strengthen and promote the industry, so it can get out of the way and focus on stuff even further out.  Industry can now launch satellites?  Great, help them get the capability of flying people and cargo to/from space.  While they're doing that, buy those services from them, and focus your efforts on the in-space stuff that's beyond their reach at the moment.   Also work on developing the technologies to enable more commercial involvement down the road (stuff like depots, tugs, etc).  Then, once private industry is to that next level, start helping them take the next steps while moving to your own next step.

Quote
So for the purposes of the here and now, there needs to be a middle ground found where NASA relies on private industry more but private industry acknowledges they are not yet ready to run the show either.

No disagreement.  I think Jeff wouldn't disagree either.

~Jon

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #46 on: 06/05/2009 12:47 am »

Agree about getting DIRECT 3.0 material out.

What I meant, was just.. 
Should they make a statement that useful(time and money saving) infrastructure is being removed weekly?

And my hope was the commission would recommend.. a "cease-and-desist" I wasn't suggesting the DIRECT team should tell the commission what to do. I was more hoping the commission would figure that out on it's own.


Like mars, I suppose it couldn't hurt, but if they don't know it's being dismantled, then it too becomes a mute point. If they do decide it is the best architecture to go with (and I think it is), then when they later find out some has been destroyed, it just means more money to spend (for which there is some margin in their design anyway, so that helps) and shedule impacts (for which are already padded in their favour).

I'd say for the presentation, it wastes more valuable time they could be spending on their strengths (which they could still say uses existing tolling, in a broad sense).

Online jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #47 on: 06/05/2009 12:52 am »
The panel will discover that there is no emerging commercial HSF capability.  Anything the nation wants, it will need to pay for itself.

And before anyone says SpaceX, they are out of money.  No Falcon 9 launches on the Florida range manifest (meaning deposits paid) to hold their place speaks volumes. 

And further COTS funding is contingent upon meeting milestones they are "miles" (pardon the pun) from meeting.  The panel will see this in the NASA presentations, which I hope (per FACA rules) become public, although there are ways of communicating this sort of info in proprietary channels (since it involves the viability of a contractor).

The problem was that because of the way Griffin ran COTS, several rather qualified commercial companies (such as ULA, Boeing, etc) never really got a fair shake.  This whole idea that SpaceX is the sum total of commercial space has got to be galling to the guys who have been launching satellites on a commercial basis for most of my lifetime.

It is true that the government may have to pay to help prime the pump of commercial HSF capabilities.  The question is, is it better to spend a smaller sum promoting and strengthening a whole new industry?  Or throw all the money into yet another NASA-only solution?

NASA has a lot of capability to help promote and nurture the development of a truly spacefaring society.  The reason to promote commercial space isn't that NASA's a bunch of incompetent screwups, or that commercial space guys are supergeniuses or so much more talented.  It's because in the long run, without commercial space, 20 years from now there will still only be a half dozen people living off planet at any time.  If that level of space activity is what Griffin wants to call "spacefaring", that's his choice.  Some of us would like to see better results out of the next $100B+ of taxpayer money funneled into NASA HSF work than we got out of the last $100B...

~Jon

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #48 on: 06/05/2009 12:55 am »
NASA has a lot of capability to help promote and nurture the development of a truly spacefaring society.

It's encouraging to see that the commission's charter includes looking at ways to stimulate commercial space and maximising the long term utility of manned spaceflight.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #49 on: 06/05/2009 12:57 am »
The Direct 3.0 video is a must.
Play it during a break.  As speakers, you guys can be there all day!

Okay, further insight on this comment...

I'm wondering how they approach the before/during/after/break times (at least from past experience for you and others).

Items to consider:
1) hand-outs, not just for each panel member, but table copies, ECT? Best approach for hand-out format (booklet, bound, stapled...)

2) The playing of videos/ppt presentations in these times, and the typical timeframes available before and after (though no doubt this is fluid at the moment).

3) Sound system: Bring your own lapel mic, rather than rely on a hand-held mic, so you have your hands free to manipulate models.

4) AV system: they would obviously have one, but is this self directed, or auto-timed, or other?

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #50 on: 06/05/2009 01:15 am »
If I'm reading the Commission's charter correctly, they are not interested in listening to the opposing arguments of a couple of disputants. If anyone goes in effectively saying "here's my side of the story" then they have already lost.

...

No mention of the "competition" because then you're wasting some of your precious 30 minutes talking about the other guy. Might as well hand it to them.


What would be really effective for ALL presenters going against the Ares architecture (because is just what they are doing) is to have one presenter to effectively have a decent proposal, but to point out all the flaws (properly documented) as to why Ares won't work the way it was intended, the realities, and the long-term penalties.

Consider the person a 'pawn' for a greater good.

And no, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the TURTH (no fabrications). That way, the panel can can get an objective presenter showing the 'other side' of what the rest of the presenters are up against.

If all the presenters get 30 minutes, they have to make that 30 minutes count. Have one plausible presenter do a 'suicide run' to give everyone else a fighting chance, because it really is a fight against the current architecture & the future of NASA's role in manned spaceflight. Any takers?? :)

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #51 on: 06/05/2009 01:16 am »
The Direct 3.0 video is a must.
Play it during a break.  As speakers, you guys can be there all day!

Okay, further insight on this comment...

Items to consider:
1) hand-outs, not just for each panel member, but table copies, ECT? Best approach for hand-out format (booklet, bound, stapled...)

2) The playing of videos/ppt presentations in these times, and the typical timeframes available before and after (though no doubt this is fluid at the moment).

3) Sound system: Bring your own lapel mic, rather than rely on a hand-held mic, so you have your hands free to manipulate models.

4) AV system: they would obviously have one, but is this self directed, or auto-timed, or other?

Not knowing the room, can't say specifically, but let's take my last NAS panel as an example.

1) The study executive will say only to provide electronic copies, but the old school members will love a professionally bound hard copy.  I would not "hand them out" as much as give them to the executive before the meeting starts.  Then mention, during the presentation, that he has said material.  (he is your key to informal future access).  Make sure the material is on a web site for everyone else to download, since it will be public soon anyway.

Limit what you give them to the basics and layer the detail. 

2) The XO will help you set this up, but the less you do in this area, the less that can go wrong.  As impressive as a video or slick media presentation is, thse people have seen tons of them that were hollow.  A simple professional presentation with clear facts goes much further than a 3 minute videa with snazzy graphics.  I would stay away from video as any part of the presentation.

Instead, I would see if I can get the XO to load my video on the machine when he loads my presentation (meaning, deliver it on CD/DVD ahead of the meeting by mail, or bring it with you, don't count on a long network download).  Then offer it up during the next break.  He (and the favor of the panel) will allow for that outside of the 30 minutes.

3) depends on the size of the room.  Use whatever they give you.  Don't bring handheld models except as break-fodder (like the video). Nothing worse than coming across as a model builder who is there to show off his work rather than a professional-grade design team.  Also, don't take the risk that something will go wrong with a model during your 30 min.  Again, offer that you have it and they can talk to you at the break or after the official session (gives you more time individually ... ha!)

4) Someone will flip your charts.  At the end of 30 min (I had an hour), you will be asked to get off in fairness to everyone else.  It will be a VERY tight schedule, and as CEOs of companies, these people have little time for over runs.  My hour included Q&A, leaving me 30 for presentation.  Your 30 likely is 20 with 10 for Q&A (or 30 and you are ushered off).  If you have additional time for Q&A, it will be mentioned before hand (or you can ask the XO ... please do).

Any others?

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #52 on: 06/05/2009 01:18 am »
If you have a great presentant "Against Ares", I would suggest that someone ask the panel for time (probably at another session).  You could mention Direct / EELV at that session too.

If you are credible, they have to let you speak ... seriously.  You could stretch pro-Direct into several sessions that way, and at several locations.  Probably not on the first day, the 17, but elsewhere.

think about it ... all the benefits of trashing Ares, but none of the risk to Direct's image...

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #53 on: 06/05/2009 01:22 am »
Now, for my personal opinion.  I don't think he'd personally like DIRECT for many of the same reasons why I'm lukewarm.  I think you could convince him that DIRECT is better than Ares, but I don't know if he'd buy that it really is the best direction for the country.  I don't.  It may be the best shuttle-derived direction, but that's a different story.  That said, Jeff is a lot more pragmatic than I am.  So who knows.  Just saying that many of your standard arguments aren't likely to hold a lot of water with someone from my corner of the industry. 

~Jon

What does that mean exactly?  NASA (i.e. "the man") is keeping you down?  Not to be rude that's just how it kind of came off.

I wasn't trying to come off that way at all.  I guess I was just saying that based on having talked with or listened to Jeff on many occasions, my guess is that he'd be more inclined to the view that NASA shouldn't be building and operating new launch systems now that the commercial sector (which includes ULA) are capable of launching stuff.  That they should focus on in-space systems, and doing the R&D necessary to really open up space for commercial development.

Not "NASA is keeping me down" at all, just that NASA's HSF program hasn't been operating in a way that provides a very good ROI for the American people.

Quote
I don't really subscribe to the belief (yet) that private industry is ready to take on this role and NASA can just be abolished or downgraded to a pure R&D agency.  I strongly believe there is still a role to play.  Are there things NASA could do better to work with commercial space?  Absolutely.  I also think commercial space to some degree is trying to sprint before they have even crawled but with time and a creating a market I have no doubt it will get there and eventually NASA should turn all LEO ops over to private industry.

Hey, I actually agree with you (and I'm sure Jeff would as well).  I *used* to wish NASA would just go away.  I grew out of it.  I still think that the way NASA does things is often almost orthogonal to what it ought to be doing, but that doesn't mean I think it doesn't have an important role it *could* and *should* play if it were willing to.

The point is that NASA should be focusing on helping strengthen and promote the industry, so it can get out of the way and focus on stuff even further out.  Industry can now launch satellites?  Great, help them get the capability of flying people and cargo to/from space.  While they're doing that, buy those services from them, and focus your efforts on the in-space stuff that's beyond their reach at the moment.   Also work on developing the technologies to enable more commercial involvement down the road (stuff like depots, tugs, etc).  Then, once private industry is to that next level, start helping them take the next steps while moving to your own next step.

Quote
So for the purposes of the here and now, there needs to be a middle ground found where NASA relies on private industry more but private industry acknowledges they are not yet ready to run the show either.

No disagreement.  I think Jeff wouldn't disagree either.

~Jon

I'm glad that we are really pretty much saying the same thing.  I think many people inside NASA and the contractor community for the most part feel the same way. 

If private industry developed a depot, I have strong beliefs NASA programs would try to use them.  However, we have a bit of a chicken and egg scenerio so NASA needs to develop (via funding, defining and signing off on requirements, inputing into and overseeing the design but letting contractor take it from there) the launch vehicle that enables exploration (and given there are no depots at this point, and to the best of my knowledge none on the drawing board or in development for near term deployment by private industry).  Given this situation, there is little choice but other than making it a heavy lift vehicle (again, I use that term generically to define a generally accepted class). 

So hopefully a more enhanced private/government relationship will come from this commission and the new administrator. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #54 on: 06/05/2009 01:31 am »

Any others?


No that's great, thanks. It was not for me, but the benefit of 'others'  :)

I was trying to think of all the things said, or rather 'not said', and bring them forward.

Offline Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #55 on: 06/05/2009 03:19 am »
Ross -

Recommend doing away with the line-by-line "reveal"
as in your ISDC talk.  It wastes tons of time, and I find
it most annoying...

F=ma


Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 949
  • Likes Given: 2056
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #56 on: 06/05/2009 03:19 am »
The problem was that because of the way Griffin ran COTS, several rather qualified commercial companies (such as ULA, Boeing, etc) never really got a fair shake.  This whole idea that SpaceX is the sum total of commercial space has got to be galling to the guys who have been launching satellites on a commercial basis for most of my lifetime.

It is true that the government may have to pay to help prime the pump of commercial HSF capabilities.  The question is, is it better to spend a smaller sum promoting and strengthening a whole new industry?  Or throw all the money into yet another NASA-only solution?

NASA has a lot of capability to help promote and nurture the development of a truly spacefaring society.  The reason to promote commercial space isn't that NASA's a bunch of incompetent screwups, or that commercial space guys are supergeniuses or so much more talented.  It's because in the long run, without commercial space, 20 years from now there will still only be a half dozen people living off planet at any time.  If that level of space activity is what Griffin wants to call "spacefaring", that's his choice.  Some of us would like to see better results out of the next $100B+ of taxpayer money funneled into NASA HSF work than we got out of the last $100B...

~Jon

The DIRECT option is the best that the Augustine Commission is going to find. They have their own concerns and considerations that will probably produce an outcome that nobody likes, however. As for NASA's direction, yeah, well, there's always things they should be doing but aren't. But their bottom line is still a good one - if you're going to send people out into space, make sure it's spectacular. Space-faring civilization will happen, but it needs government as an anchor tenant. Something like the ISS today.

Without the STS skillset, there's going to be a long period of nothing happening in HSF. Engineers make rocket ships, they can't do that when they're selling cars. That's probably the biggest argument for "staying the course."
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 03:32 am by Lampyridae »

Online jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #57 on: 06/05/2009 04:54 am »
Sorry, this is only slightly on topic for the Augustine Commission, but I figured it was worth mentioning.

(and given there are no depots at this point, and to the best of my knowledge none on the drawing board or in development for near term deployment by private industry).

I guess this depends a lot on what you mean by "on the drawing board" or "in development".  I'm actually working on a paper right now with a few of the propellant depot groups in industry, and there are some realistic near-term propellant depot or depot-like concepts that could allow for really interesting cislunar transportation capabilities, even without any new launch vehicles.  Most of the technology needed for a bare-bones first-generation depot is either already mature, or at a decent state of development.  Quite frankly storage, handling, and transfer of cryogens on orbit are actually at a higher technological maturity level than orbital rendezvous was at the point LOR was baselined as the approach for Apollo. 

The key problem isn't technology, it's market lag.  There are markets that could use depots, but most of them can't even get development started until a depot exists or is at least a sure thing.  Propellant for exploration missions is an exception to that rule.  If NASA were still capable of taking good calculated risks, and rapidly beating those risks into the ground like they did in the Apollo days, there are ways this could be done.  Even without Apollo level funding.  There are lots of paths back to the moon that don't involve NASA spending a majority of its budgets operating vehicles to lift propellants that the private sector could be lifting instead.  There are some risks, but I'd rather take risks with my eyes wide open to them than be forced to assume other risks by default.

It's a long-shot and a dream.  I really doubt NASA will do much more than give depots benign neglect.  But, the possibility of accelerating the availability of such an important technology make it worth taking the long-shot, just in case.

~Jon 

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #58 on: 06/05/2009 05:08 am »

The DIRECT option is the best that the Augustine Commission is going to find. They have their own concerns and considerations that will probably produce an outcome that nobody likes, however. As for NASA's direction, yeah, well, there's always things they should be doing but aren't. But their bottom line is still a good one - if you're going to send people out into space, make sure it's spectacular. Space-faring civilization will happen, but it needs government as an anchor tenant. Something like the ISS today.

"Space-faring civilization will happen, but it needs government as an anchor tenant."

You state such important truth, but completely disregard it in the path you advocate.  NASA servicing it's own launch needs abrogates that duty, of being the anchor tenant to a still fledgling industry.  Only by putting those new lunar launch needs to an already capable industry to fufill can that demand be utilized to drive the growth of commercial space capability; growth which can pay dividends beyond the accomplishment of a handful of lunar missions.  You would put off the progress such a path would build, all to what, enjoy a spectacle?  Would a lunar mission be any less spectacular were the rockets that made it possible constructed by someone other than NASA?

"Something like the ISS today."

The ISS is a terrible model for commercial growth.  Since its initial conception, it has seen the government through NASA take the role of servicing the large launch demand inherent in it.  Launching and servicing ISS could have established a complete line of launch vehicles, more flights inherent than the payloads of all the EELV launches thus far. 

But no.  Every dollar, every dime, tens upon tens of billions of it, and 25 years of effort, was spent on NASA meeting the launch needs of NASA, rather than putting those needs to the commercial launch industry to fulfill.  Anything else, the thing you are referring to of one day utilizing commercial resupply, only came about with the destruction of the launch system NASA would have continued to use to service the ISS indefinitely.  Only when NASA's hands were forced did they make the attempt of meeting their absolute duty.  Without that impetus, all of the funds of the ISS program would have gone into maintaining expensive government capabilities at the expense of stimulating the commercial space field, rather than just the 99.5 percent spent that way thus far.

The manner in which the ISS was executed deprived industry of NASA being that anchor tenant they need, that we all need them to be if the future is to be largely better than the state it is today of expensive government capabilities that only allow for a space program of a narrow scope, and a commercial field even narrower.  Only by recognizing that mistake can we make the correct choices that face us now.

The choice before us is clear.  It is the stagnation of the past 40 years extended to the next 40, where spectacles come out of government effort but nothing of lasting meaning or progress.  Or it is NASA becoming the anchor tenant of industry and helping to build the commercial space field of tomorrow.  That second path must be pursued, not obliged in words while a commitment is made to the first.  In order for space-faring civilization to happen, government needs to become the anchor tenant of the commercial space industry.

Quote
Without the STS skillset, there's going to be a long period of nothing happening in HSF. Engineers make rocket ships, they can't do that when they're selling cars. That's probably the biggest argument for "staying the course."

There is no such skillset in the STS system.  No one in the Space Shuttle program designs rockets.  They only maintain the operation of a system designed 40 years ago.  Polishing a sacred monolith.  Such expertise is in industry, where 3 successful rocket systems have been designed in the past 10 years.  They are the ones not being utilized in the task that would befit them, by disregarding that expertise in the construction of a new internal NASA rocket.  They are the ones to turn to if you want results.  There is no such course at NASA to stick with, unless it means flying the Shuttle for eternity.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 05:14 am by libs0n »

Offline veryrelaxed

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Commission Thread 2
« Reply #59 on: 06/05/2009 06:26 am »
Since the thread has turned to the COTS angle, just a comment -- if anything -- NASA should stimulate firms like Bigelow that establish crucial non-governmental *demand markets*, not yet another *supplier* LV provider among dozens like Spacex, etc...  in the current glut of supply side.

Then NASA will stop being "the man", and private suppliers will have a private market all to their own to service thus closing a self sustaining loop (if it ever works)  But having a bunch of COTS/D suppliers cling onto the one and only 'market' represented by the taxpayers' space station the ISS, will not help the commercial side at all.  Like I mention before : I hear this sentiment from the COTS enthusasts: "ISS is terrible", but then "NASA should buy COTS to ISS because there is no private market for COTS" ; this is not helpful to anyone.

NASA should of course drop any in-house designed LVs like the STS, Ares or Direct and initiate the switch to commercial by contracting D4 and A5 (and both Bo and LM had spent a bunch of their own money as well for the EELV's development, some of it on the promises of the OSP)  existing rockets for their manned launches/fuel depots, simply because a distributed architecture is more robust long term.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 07:07 am by veryrelaxed »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0