OV-106 keeps pitting commercial crew against Shuttle but nobody else has ever suggested that there was such a trade-off.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/30/2012 02:22 pmOV-106 keeps pitting commercial crew against Shuttle but nobody else has ever suggested that there was such a trade-off. Hold on there. That is what people like you want to believe because you cannot see the forest for the trees. I have NEVER pitted the two against each other and instead time and time again suggested how Shuttle could actually enhance and increase the chances of success for commercial crew and other activities. The very reason I say what I say is because I want the best chance for commercial and why I use the terms like "value proposition" while people like yourself only moan about how not enough government money is being spent. I suggest very strongly you recant that because I will take you on relative to that point time and time again and, in the end, you WILL lose...and badly.
OK. I stand corrected then. But you keep saying that pro-commercial people all wanted Shuttle to end as quickly as possible which isn't true either. I can't speak for all commercial crew proponents but I am very glad that STS-134 and 135 were flown in 2011. I was supportive of adding these flights and of extending Shuttle into 2011 in order to close the cargo gap.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 03/30/2012 01:46 pmThey "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying. Actually, the Augustine option to extend the Shuttle to 2015 would have used a cargo only Directly Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle (not Ares I). This option still would have funded commercial crew (instead of Ares I). Augustine replaced Ares I with commercial crew in almost all of his options. See slide 33 of the Sally Ride Presentation:http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.pptOV-106 keeps pitting commercial crew against Shuttle but nobody else has ever suggested that there was such a trade-off.
They "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/30/2012 02:50 pmOK. I stand corrected then. But you keep saying that pro-commercial people all wanted Shuttle to end as quickly as possible which isn't true either. I can't speak for all commercial crew proponents but I am very glad that STS-134 and 135 were flown in 2011. I was supportive of adding these flights and of extending Shuttle into 2011 in order to close the cargo gap. yg,I have no idea who you are and personally do not care. When I say things about certain groups and/or organizations, you personally are not on the forefront of my mind. Sorry for the harsh reality. There were certain groups and/or organizations that wanted Shuttle out of the way as soon as possible. You can choose to believe that or not, again, I personally do not care. The reason was because their interests stood to profit, not the greater good. With that, there were all kinds of promises made, branding "commercial" something it was not yet ready to become and, now, many of those "advocates" are not nearly as vocal as they were. With those promises being made, and if we just look at this forum, do not try to tell me that the more gullible among us did also not jump on the bandwagon suggesting that if shuttle just "got out of the way", we would be in a much better position and on the verge of a utopia.Reality has not met the hype and rhetoric. So there you go. I suggest you leave it at that.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 03/30/2012 01:46 pmThey "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying. Actually, the Augustine option to extend the Shuttle to 2015 would have used a cargo only Directly Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle (not Ares I). This option still would have funded commercial crew (instead of Ares I). Augustine replaced Ares I with commercial crew in almost all of his options. See slide 33 of the Sally Ride Presentation:http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.ppt
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/30/2012 02:22 pmQuote from: 51D Mascot on 03/30/2012 01:46 pmThey "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying. Actually, the Augustine option to extend the Shuttle to 2015 would have used a cargo only Directly Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle (not Ares I). This option still would have funded commercial crew (instead of Ares I). Augustine replaced Ares I with commercial crew in almost all of his options. See slide 33 of the Sally Ride Presentation:http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.pptOh, and just to clarify, my reference to Ares 1 was with respect to the 2008 Act and what was known or anticipated with respect to the Ares 1 schedule at that time--not to be confused with my subsequent reference to Augustine, which was, of course, a year later.
Sally's charts pre-dated the final report. Pertinent language in the final report is at pages 50-51, where three shuttle scenarios were provided. The following is relevant to the third scenario option."• Scenario 3: Extend Shuttle to 2015 at Minimum Flight Rate. This scenario would extend the Shuttle at a minimum safe flight rate (nominally two flights per year) into FY 2015. Once the Shuttle is retired, the U.S. itself will no longer have the ability to launch astronauts into space, and will have to rely on the Russian Soyuz vehicle. That gap will persist until a new vehicle becomes available to transport crew to low-Earth orbit. Under the current program, the resulting gap is expected to be seven years or more. This scenario, if combined with a new crew launch capability that will be available by the middle of the 2010s, significantly reduces that gap, and retains U.S. ability to deliver astronauts to the ISS.
Scenario 2: Short-Term Support for the ISS. Space Shuttle retirement will have an impact on the ISS (described more fully in a subsequent section). Scenario 2 would add one additional Shuttle flight to provide some additional support for the ISS and ease the transition to commercial and international cargo flights. It could enhance early utilization of the ISS, offer an opportunity for providing more spare parts, and enable scientific experiments to be brought back to Earth. This additional Shuttle flight would not replace any of the planned international or commercial resupply flights.One obvious question is: “Why add just one flight?” Due to the planned retirement, the Shuttle’s external tank production line has been closed recently, and it is not costeffective to re-open it for a small number of new tanks. However, there is one spare external tank remaining in inventory. This scenario thus envisions using that tank and conducting one additional Shuttle flight in late FY 2011 or early FY 2012. This scenario requires that funds be put in the in FY 2011 and possibly FY 2012 budget for the one additional Shuttle flight. This minimal extension does not mitigate the workforce transition issues; it does extend U.S. human spaceflight capability, but only by a few months; and it does offer some additional short-term logistical support to the ISS.
That's fine. I am happy to leave it at that. But you have a tendancy to lump all commercial crew proponants into one pot assuming we all think the same way which of course isn't true.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/30/2012 03:11 pmThat's fine. I am happy to leave it at that. But you have a tendancy to lump all commercial crew proponants into one pot assuming we all think the same way which of course isn't true. Thankfully that is true, that not everyone thinks the same. Because, based on posts here, you don't get it because you have done it again. I *AM* a commercial advocate and that is why I speak about value propositions, making ISS more user-friendly, etc. Why I wanted a smoother transition and an integrated strategy. Do you understand what that means? My fairly informed presumption based on past conversations is that you do not. I can be a true commercial advocate and question why groups like the CSF, TPiS, etc are not saying the same things I am about creating the forces that would generate a more substantial market and just instead wanting government money.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 03/30/2012 03:03 pmSally's charts pre-dated the final report. Pertinent language in the final report is at pages 50-51, where three shuttle scenarios were provided. The following is relevant to the third scenario option."• Scenario 3: Extend Shuttle to 2015 at Minimum Flight Rate. This scenario would extend the Shuttle at a minimum safe flight rate (nominally two flights per year) into FY 2015. Once the Shuttle is retired, the U.S. itself will no longer have the ability to launch astronauts into space, and will have to rely on the Russian Soyuz vehicle. That gap will persist until a new vehicle becomes available to transport crew to low-Earth orbit. Under the current program, the resulting gap is expected to be seven years or more. This scenario, if combined with a new crew launch capability that will be available by the middle of the 2010s, significantly reduces that gap, and retains U.S. ability to deliver astronauts to the ISS. I guess the Administration went ahead with Scenario 2 then. QuoteScenario 2: Short-Term Support for the ISS. Space Shuttle retirement will have an impact on the ISS (described more fully in a subsequent section). Scenario 2 would add one additional Shuttle flight to provide some additional support for the ISS and ease the transition to commercial and international cargo flights. It could enhance early utilization of the ISS, offer an opportunity for providing more spare parts, and enable scientific experiments to be brought back to Earth. This additional Shuttle flight would not replace any of the planned international or commercial resupply flights.One obvious question is: “Why add just one flight?” Due to the planned retirement, the Shuttle’s external tank production line has been closed recently, and it is not costeffective to re-open it for a small number of new tanks. However, there is one spare external tank remaining in inventory. This scenario thus envisions using that tank and conducting one additional Shuttle flight in late FY 2011 or early FY 2012. This scenario requires that funds be put in the in FY 2011 and possibly FY 2012 budget for the one additional Shuttle flight. This minimal extension does not mitigate the workforce transition issues; it does extend U.S. human spaceflight capability, but only by a few months; and it does offer some additional short-term logistical support to the ISS.
I agree with you on the need to create a market as I have told you previously. But cutting commercial crew from $830 million to $500M probably means down selecting to two providers under CCiCap which in my mind means that we can say good bye to Dream Chaser which would be a shame.
Quote from: jongoff on 03/30/2012 04:27 amQuote from: Jim on 03/30/2012 04:19 amQuote from: Mark S on 03/30/2012 03:57 amShort-sighted and wrong. Quote Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.The Life of Reason (1905-1906) by George Santayana.Applicable to SLSYup, very applicable. The problem is that those who cannot remember the past tend to drag the rest of us along for their remedial lessons.~JonThe past that I learn from is that HSF missions are accomplished by NASA owned systems. Every manned launch from the beginning of American space flight, heck even all non-American space flight since the dawn of the space age, has taken place on government owned systems.It is the "commercial" proponents who need to prove their case that a market will magically develop and be sustainable if NASA would just throw away all their experience, expertise, and processes, and not just rely on, but become 100% dependent on, these "commercial" providers. It is an extraordinary leap of faith that deserves full scrutiny and is justifiably the subject of skepticism and demands for proof.Mark S.
Quote from: Jim on 03/30/2012 04:19 amQuote from: Mark S on 03/30/2012 03:57 amShort-sighted and wrong. Quote Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.The Life of Reason (1905-1906) by George Santayana.Applicable to SLSYup, very applicable. The problem is that those who cannot remember the past tend to drag the rest of us along for their remedial lessons.~Jon
Quote from: Mark S on 03/30/2012 03:57 amShort-sighted and wrong. Quote Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.The Life of Reason (1905-1906) by George Santayana.Applicable to SLS
Short-sighted and wrong. Quote Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.The Life of Reason (1905-1906) by George Santayana.
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
I was more hinting at NASA's recent (ie past 30 years) inability to complete a new launch vehicle or manned spaceflight vehicle development program... But you're right Mark, unlike every other transportation form in history, manned spaceflight is obviously something that can only be done by the government. It's obviously incumbent on commercial spaceflight developers to prove that NASA doesn't have some magic pixie dust that only allows government programs to succeed. That's *totally* the right lesson to draw from history...
So is COTS, CRS, CCDev, etc a government program? Where are the non-NASA customers? Where are the customers and the investors to provide funding in order to free said "commercial spaceflight developers" from NASA money, requirements, etc.?
It is easy to say something is better, but it can only be better with a certain entity's money that one is also trying to paint as a drag-on-everything. And say one needs more of it.
As for schedule slips, "commercial spaceflight developers" are hardly immune to that as well. Clearly.
Mark S was making a ridiculous point, and I was just pointing out how ridiculous it was.~Jon
Quote from: jongoff on 03/30/2012 04:41 pmMark S was making a ridiculous point, and I was just pointing out how ridiculous it was.~JonIt was not a ridiculous point, it was stating a fact. In the history of space flight, only government programs have launched people into orbit. Until that changes, the burden is on the commercial providers to prove that they have what it takes to manage a space program, or even just a "simple" LEO launch service.We threw away what we had in the hopes that an unproven concept would be a suitable replacement. So far it's not looking so great.Mark S.
Until that changes, the burden is on the commercial providers to prove that they have what it takes to manage a space program, or even just a "simple" LEO launch service.
So far it's not looking so great.