Author Topic: Augustine Committee - August 12th public meeting in Washington D.C.  (Read 388412 times)

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2251
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 156
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.

What is COA?

Sorry.  COA = Course of Action, or I think in their words, "Option"  COA is army speak.

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

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 cargo
this will happen just after 2020 after ISS deorbit and maybe a shuttle to 2015 extension.
There is a big mystery as to crew to LEO
missing slides from Aug 5th AND today
« Last Edit: 08/13/2009 02:22 am by infocat13 »
I am a member of the side mount amazing people universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture amazing people universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Online TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2209
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 264
  • Likes Given: 372
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=2009908120316

After 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.
« Last Edit: 08/13/2009 02:30 am by TrueBlueWitt »

Online TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2209
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 264
  • Likes Given: 372
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.

Any chance they can hang it around a certain former administrator's neck and detach themselves from it?

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

Any chance they can hang it around a certain former administrator's neck and detach themselves from it?

AND.....................................claim the need for the bring us back to ESAS or the 2009 budget is a much needed stimulus :)
I am a member of the side mount amazing people universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture amazing people universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Online TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2209
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 264
  • Likes Given: 372
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.
« Last Edit: 08/13/2009 02:29 am by TrueBlueWitt »

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 477
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 16
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 stage
LOX/RP-1 upper stage

Performance:
LEO: 8 - 10 mT

Is 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


Those specs sound awfully familiar:

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

;)
Yes, and also the smaller versions of:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/product_sheet/AtlasProductCardFinal.pdf
http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/product_sheet/DeltaIVProductCardFinal.pdf

I'm confused about how the crew taxi fits into a mission. Is it:

1) Crew Taxi takes crew to LEO
2) Taxi docks with previously launched unmanned HLV Orion+SM
3) Orion heads off to (somewhere)
4) Orion returns to LEO and docks with Crew Taxi
5) Crew Taxi reenters and lands/splashes

Or is it:

1) Crew Taxi takes crew to LEO
2) Taxi docks with previously launched unmanned HLV Orion+SM
3) Taxi is disposed of
4) Orion heads off to (somewhere)
5) Orion returns and reenters


Offline sewand

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 226
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I can't say that I'm unhappy about the general direction the panel is going in.  I like the idea of commercial providers taking the lead in LEO.  I like the idea of shuttle-derived heavy lift for beyond LEO.  But still, I have a sense of frustration that is entirely due to the fact that all these budget estimates seem so huge in time and expense!
In retrospect, NASA's greatest achievement wasn't Apollo 11.  It most certainly had to be the first launch of the Shuttle.  In a decade of very low budgets they were able to field a new main engine, new boosters, a radical new orbiter, new infrastructure, new launch and landing software.  It all worked the first time - launching a crew on the first all-up flight test. 
Forty years later, using the same engines, same boosters, requiring relatively minor changes in the thrust structures - it's going to take 13 years to launch?   Ridiculous.  Really inexplicable.   

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6616
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3411
  • Likes Given: 1223
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 stage
LOX/RP-1 upper stage

Performance:
LEO: 8 - 10 mT

Is 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).

I'll answer the second question first.  The commercial crew characteristics listed there look like a manned Dragon on Falcon 9.  They did explicitly mention that it was just a placeholder.

Earlier in the discussion of Sally Ride's part, she mentioned that they were proposing putting $2.5B into funding commercial crew options, trying to make sure that there were several strong competitors.  One option that it sounded like they were talking about was putting money into something equivalent to human rating one of the EELVs for crew launch, so that some companies could do just the capsule part.  And so that at the end of the day, if NASA had to fall back on a commercial launcher for crew, they'd have an option that was ready for flying people.

~Jon

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
From the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125012680951127905.html
Quote
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 wonder how long we will have to wait for a decision from the powers that be after the report comes out.
« Last Edit: 08/13/2009 02:40 am by Norm Hartnett »
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

naaa not him ! I am in favor of "better cheaper faster' put the dragon on top of some solid rocket booster such as the ESA Vega.This solid rocket then is the SRB for the big ugly side mounted beast we will put on the Ariane VIIII:) save really big money here! ( really! :) )
if the solid develops trouble we will use the Chinese crew delivery system to get us to the dragon/side mount stack at LEO...............

I am a member of the side mount amazing people universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture amazing people universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Offline Lab Lemming

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I think your second option is one possibility.  The other is:
1) Block 2 Crew Taxi takes crew to LEO
2) Taxi docks with previously launched unmanned HLV habitation module
3) Hab module + taxi flies off.
4) taxi used for re-entry (will need thicker heat shield than block 1 taxi)



I'm confused about how the crew taxi fits into a mission. Is it:

1) Crew Taxi takes crew to LEO
2) Taxi docks with previously launched unmanned HLV Orion+SM
3) Orion heads off to (somewhere)
4) Orion returns to LEO and docks with Crew Taxi
5) Crew Taxi reenters and lands/splashes

Or is it:

1) Crew Taxi takes crew to LEO
2) Taxi docks with previously launched unmanned HLV Orion+SM
3) Taxi is disposed of
4) Orion heads off to (somewhere)
5) Orion returns and reenters



Offline loomy

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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 stage
LOX/RP-1 upper stage

Performance:
LEO: 8 - 10 mT

Is 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


Those specs sound awfully familiar:

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

;)


Wasn'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 . .

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
1. Realize that PD's make for a simple and straightforward way to organize international cooperation - partners simply need to boost props to contribute. While not as desirable as say building a ISS module or lander, it is more practical and achievable way of getting out of LEO. Would bring "Dash out of LEO" back.

2. While you may argue with the committee's process and results, they are doing a credible job in wrestling with an impossible situation at an impossible time. So their work is highly commendable and will be hard to overlook regardless of Nelson's or Bolton's view - they'd be idiots to ignore it. Which doesn't mean they'll accept it entirely, or at face value.

If you could have gotten that this could have happened through Griffin's pig headed stubbornness, I doubt you'd have seen Orion/Ares I/Ares V anywhere like what we've seen.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Online Chris Bergin

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.

Not Griffin, but Griffith:

Griffith asks for White House support on Ares rocket program
http://blog.al.com/space-news/2009/08/griffith_asks_for_white_house.html


Ooooh my, I nearly got caught out by a trick journalists sometimes use. It's under "breaking news" - dated today - but the Griffith's comments are from July 31.

The real reaction to today's review will be interesting, as they really went negative on CxP for the first time.
« Last Edit: 08/13/2009 02:51 am by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15311
  • Liked: 5755
  • Likes Given: 2554
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=2009908120316

After 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.

The article talks of EELVs. I don't think that this would apply for the Ares V light.

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.

From the presentation, I got the impression that the panel was somewhat neutral between some of the rocket options (Ares V light vs Direct or NSC) and that they cared much more about the deep space objectives and fitting them into a budget than anything else. My prediction is that NASA will go with the dual Ares V light structure.
« Last Edit: 08/13/2009 02:54 am by yg1968 »

Offline Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1224
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 99

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).

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

But 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.

You've highlighted an important point; that of the difference of a plan matched to an existing budget versus a plan tagged to a budget increase. This and other reasons for politicians ignoring a report were in my mind when I wrote my reply, but I do appreciate the clarity that you've added.
Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
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

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.

Not true, Ross. 2005 and 2008 Authorization Acts provided ALL the funding authority originally projected for Exploration for 2007 through 2009, the three Fiscal Years for which they provided authorizations...but the White House never requested, and thus the appropriators never appropriated. Authorizers asked appropriators to approve above the requested levels, but that would have meant taking money from some other agency within their accounts jurisdiction (Commerce, Justice, other Independent Agencies) and that just wasn't going to happen. It has to begin with the President's request for the maximum authorized levels.

Here are the numbers, followed by what the numbers would be above the FY 2010 requested amount and projections for 2011 and 2012:



Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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 stage
LOX/RP-1 upper stage

Performance:
LEO: 8 - 10 mT

Is 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


Those specs sound awfully familiar:

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

;)


Wasn'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 . .
What ?
EELV is as of now a DOD function.
official EELV ?
there has been talk of EELV ( not COTS ) being commercial as in bigalow and this is exciting and should be encouraged...................
I would like to see both EELV and COTS D some day soon play a part in government and commercial spaceflight but there will be a budget........:)
I am a member of the side mount amazing people universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture amazing people universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Offline Longhorn John

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1555
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 127


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.

No, it was the guy with the Moustache that said they should scrap Orion and no one countered him apart from Bo.

I hope they go with SDLV as it works for shuttle extension and loses us all the mistakes of Ares. Remember, no Ares I, no Ares V, that's what Constellation have been saying from Day 1, so why would it be ok all of a sudden without draining billions.

Commonality, commonality, commonality.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0