Author Topic: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?  (Read 25269 times)

Offline JAFO

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 617
  • Liked: 257
  • Likes Given: 192
Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« on: 09/05/2010 07:23 PM »
'scuse me if this has been covered or is obvious but why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?


Thanks
Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.
— Ernest K. Gann

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #1 on: 09/05/2010 07:30 PM »
'scuse me if this has been covered or is obvious but why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?


Who says she is putting "our" HSF programs at risk
Who is "our"?

Offline aquarius

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 425
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #2 on: 09/05/2010 07:38 PM »
Maybe she wants to fly herself. After all, she wanted to go into space on Soyuz as a space tourist.

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #3 on: 09/05/2010 08:50 PM »
The United States government fully funds 1 space program (STS), and is the anchor tenant for 4 others, (Atlas, Delta, Falcon, and Oribtal).  Can you name the other nation that has 5 space programs, all of which share nearly zero commonality of pad infrastructure and parts?

Which one of these is the major launcher of science missions, supports our defense forces, and provides the greatest service to the private sector?

http://space.au.af.mil/factsheets/eelv.htm

The EELV acquisition reform program has been a great bargain for the military, some times not good business for Boeing and LM, but it's definitely a good thing for "the American people".

FY2011 as written by the administration would have subjected NASA to a similar reform to what we forced the Air Force though 20 years ago.  It served them well, and 20 years from now this reform would have served NASA well.

But unfortunately "Our experts in Utah" didn't agree.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #4 on: 09/05/2010 09:57 PM »
 
Two thoughts.....   1.  she doesnt really like HSF because it is elitist.   ( exactly what Jimmy Carter said ).

2.  like many people, she thinks everyone before her was an inaccurate and did things wrong.   ( Nasa ! )
These commercial kids say it is actually easy, HSF.  ( way wrong !!!!  )


(  I realize she tried to get a flight one time, BTW ).

Recently the newspaper said that some company said they will fly circum lunar tourists in about 4 years... nonsense.   And the reporter didnt even challenge the claim.
« Last Edit: 09/05/2010 09:59 PM by dks13827 »

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #5 on: 09/05/2010 10:07 PM »
The only one who can answer this question is Garver herself.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #6 on: 09/05/2010 11:13 PM »

FY2011 as written by the administration would have subjected NASA to a similar reform to what we forced the Air Force though 20 years ago.  It served them well, and 20 years from now this reform would have served NASA well.

But unfortunately "Our experts in Utah" didn't agree.

All speculation with zero evidence behind it.  Zero evidence can be provided because the FY2011 proposal was vague and ambiguous in itself.  It is also another bad attempt at making a "villian".  In this particular case, ATK.  As if the CSF, or any other company or organization for that matter, is any better with their political machines and lobbying tactics.  In other words, it cuts both ways and again so many on here refuse to see that or acknowledge that because of political "bias"

FY2011 "plan" possibly culminated in a manned mission to an asteroid maybe 15 years from now.  In other words, a small goal far in the future that this administration would be far removed from.  Hardly the "multiple destinations by many crews sooner than the POR" (by the way, I am not advocating the POR so no one better try to flame me and paint me that way) which was essentially what was touted on Feb 1 when the budget was rolled out.  If this administration cannot even be consistent in their wording, why should anyone believe any of the above?
« Last Edit: 09/05/2010 11:15 PM by OV-106 »
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: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #7 on: 09/05/2010 11:16 PM »
One other thing.  There is nothing wrong with being "pro-commercial".  With all things it is about implementation. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #8 on: 09/05/2010 11:28 PM »
My question has to be does the author of this post understand that Spacex might be after this October launch 6-8 months from starting Cargo delivery to the ISS? Does the author also realize that Orbital Sciences is only 6 months away from testing their Taurus 2 vehicle and less than a year away from ISS cargo delivery as well? Does the author also realize that Boeing is well along with development of their CST-100 manned capsule and that at about the same time Spacex should have their own manned capsule ready as well. 2011 will be the year commercial cargo will be realized. There is no going back, one way or another commercial cargo spaceflight is going to be here next year. I suggest we get used to it. 

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #9 on: 09/05/2010 11:31 PM »
Very few people are anti-commercial.

SpaceX and Orbital certainly deserve a seat at the table. It is simply too early to give them the entire table.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #10 on: 09/05/2010 11:47 PM »

FY2011 as written by the administration would have subjected NASA to a similar reform to what we forced the Air Force though 20 years ago.  It served them well, and 20 years from now this reform would have served NASA well.

But unfortunately "Our experts in Utah" didn't agree.

All speculation with zero evidence behind it.  Zero evidence can be provided because the FY2011 proposal was vague and ambiguous in itself.  It is also another bad attempt at making a "villian".  In this particular case, ATK.

"Our experts in Utah" was a quote from the Senator from Utah at the roll out of the compromise bill, so I would say that's not unfounded.

You are right FY2011 was VERY nebulous, but one thing was not.  HSF launch would be bid out in a fashion similar to how payloads for DOD are bid out.  Humans would be treated like the cargo that they are.

The Senate compromise is just as nebulous on it's time lines and goals, but it includes 1, possibly 2 more Shuttle flights and a fast tracked goalpost for HLV (without funding it).  That was enough to calm down most folks.

There are no villians here.  Everyone is looking out for their self interest, Senators are protecting their state's jobs, NASA employees/ contractors are trying to protect their jobs.  ATK is trying to protect their employees.  SpaceX/ULA are trying to drum up more business.

Just understand, I am a fiscal conservative, and see no reason that NASA should be the only Space Program in the world that does not have to share it's infrastructure and vehicle development costs with the private sector and the nations defense forces.  Even the China does that..
« Last Edit: 09/05/2010 11:47 PM by SpacexULA »
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #11 on: 09/06/2010 12:02 AM »
@SpacexULA

Quote
HSF launch would be bid out in a fashion similar to how payloads for DOD are bid out.

Perhaps that was the intention, however it would seem ULA has been saying they have little intention of putting their own skin in the game and if fixed bids are required there would be so much padding, there would be little point to doing it that way.

Andrew Aldrin:

Quote
Aldrin said if industry is asked to develop a commercial crew system under a fixed-price contract, prudent companies will build in big reserves to guard against losing money on the deal, while others might underbid the job in hopes of securing the win. “Here you have an interesting situation — competitive environment and fixed-price development contract. Trust me on this, the management reserve in these bids is going to overwhelm the differences in cost efficiencies or design efficiencies,” he said.

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100402-commercial-crew-plan--hinge-risk-sharing.html
« Last Edit: 09/06/2010 12:02 AM by Bill White »
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9637
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 465
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #12 on: 09/06/2010 12:08 AM »
What makes Lori Garver so pro-free enterprise? I dunno, perhaps the fall of Communism, the failure of Constellation, the success of SpaceX, your guess is as good as mine.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #13 on: 09/06/2010 01:33 AM »

FY2011 as written by the administration would have subjected NASA to a similar reform to what we forced the Air Force though 20 years ago.  It served them well, and 20 years from now this reform would have served NASA well.

But unfortunately "Our experts in Utah" didn't agree.

All speculation with zero evidence behind it.  Zero evidence can be provided because the FY2011 proposal was vague and ambiguous in itself.  It is also another bad attempt at making a "villian".  In this particular case, ATK.

"Our experts in Utah" was a quote from the Senator from Utah at the roll out of the compromise bill, so I would say that's not unfounded.

You are right FY2011 was VERY nebulous, but one thing was not.  HSF launch would be bid out in a fashion similar to how payloads for DOD are bid out.  Humans would be treated like the cargo that they are.

The Senate compromise is just as nebulous on it's time lines and goals, but it includes 1, possibly 2 more Shuttle flights and a fast tracked goalpost for HLV (without funding it).  That was enough to calm down most folks.

There are no villians here.  Everyone is looking out for their self interest, Senators are protecting their state's jobs, NASA employees/ contractors are trying to protect their jobs.  ATK is trying to protect their employees.  SpaceX/ULA are trying to drum up more business.

Just understand, I am a fiscal conservative, and see no reason that NASA should be the only Space Program in the world that does not have to share it's infrastructure and vehicle development costs with the private sector and the nations defense forces.  Even the China does that..

On the whole "Utah" thing, it does not matter if it was a quote or not.  It was the context of the sentance and how you used it.  I stand by my statement about your intended meaning, even if you try to back-track now. 

Another thing now, fly humans, "like the cargo they are, is an assanine statement.  Just theoretically, would buy a ticket on an airline that had an advertisement like "fly with us, and we will treat you like the cargo that you and all humans are".  Now don't try to counter with some statement asking if I have flown coach lately or something silly like that.  While many "cargo" launches carry very expensive and important payloads that should not be taken for granted, and the reliability of the rocket is a very important part of the equation, at the end of the day that cargo is not "human" and there is a difference.  Your cavalier attitude about that gives me....pause. 

As for the Senate bill, I believe you will find you are wrong on several points.  However, I will let 51D answer that if he so chooses. 

If there are no "villians", then why try to cast others as such.  Why not pay equal attention to the other cases you just mentioned?  None of it is "wrong" but the double-standard is a bit amusing.  You should probably be aware though that NASA employees are not in danger of losing their jobs.  As for the contractors and everyone else, I think you confuse the situation, as do a lot of people.  It's not about protecting a job, it never has been with anyone I know for a very long time.  Certainly pre-"mightier-than-thou" posts here.  It is about doing what one believes it right and standing for something.  But you and others can call it as you will because you have been caught up in the "internet-feed" and if enough people say it on the internet, then it must be correct. 

I'm glad that you are a fiscal conservative, I am too.  More should be in my opinion.  Your statement however is flawed.  Government cannot share the costs with the "private sector" if the government is to be the only customer.  The private sector today is not going to just invest their capital money into something to provide to the government when they can sell it nowhere else.   That is the case right now for an HLV.  If there were demand right now for an HLV, beyond NASA use, and ULA or someone else was bending metal right now to give that capability, then NASA too could be a customer and a SDLV would be a waste.  Again, that is not the case. 

Given that, NASA should be able to choose what that HLV will be since they will be funding it.  From a cost perspective, that vehicle essentially exists today.  There is no need to re-invent the wheel.  In today's fiscal climate, we should be using what we have to the maximum extent possible.  While I certainly appreciate ULA, and no doubt they will play a role in the future, there is more to making a "EELV HLV" then you are giving credit.  That is publically available.  In addition, where does it address recurring and fixed costs for the "EELV HLV", given they will be pretty different? 

People need to stop looking at this so black and white and see there is a future here for everyone to participate and stop drawing arbitrary battle lines. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline JAFO

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 617
  • Liked: 257
  • Likes Given: 192
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #14 on: 09/06/2010 01:38 AM »
My question has to be does the author of this post understand that Spacex might be after this October launch 6-8 months from starting Cargo delivery to the ISS? Does the author also realize that Orbital Sciences is only 6 months away from testing their Taurus 2 vehicle and less than a year away from ISS cargo delivery as well? Does the author also realize that Boeing is well along with development of their CST-100 manned capsule and that at about the same time Spacex should have their own manned capsule ready as well. 2011 will be the year commercial cargo will be realized. There is no going back, one way or another commercial cargo spaceflight is going to be here next year. I suggest we get used to it. 

Nope, I didn't realize all that.

Bad phraseology on my part in the title of the thread, I sure hope no one took it as a flamebait post. I've gone back and forth from cheering on Bigelow and Musk and their accomplishments to my disappointment with NASA for the POR, and my hopes that NASA will return to the NASA I grew up with. I guess I've been so focused on my hopes for Direct that I didn't realize the points mr. mark made above. I just hate to see all the STS infrastructure and workforce lost for the promise of a HLV somewhere down the road when we have such a promising system with so much of the work already done.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2010 02:25 AM by JAFO »
Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.
— Ernest K. Gann

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1923
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #15 on: 09/06/2010 02:25 AM »
My question has to be does the author of this post understand that Spacex might be after this October launch 6-8 months from starting Cargo delivery to the ISS? Does the author also realize that Orbital Sciences is only 6 months away from testing their Taurus 2 vehicle and less than a year away from ISS cargo delivery as well? Does the author also realize that Boeing is well along with development of their CST-100 manned capsule and that at about the same time Spacex should have their own manned capsule ready as well. 2011 will be the year commercial cargo will be realized. There is no going back, one way or another commercial cargo spaceflight is going to be here next year. I suggest we get used to it. 

Nope, I didn't realize all that. I guess I've been so focused on my hopes for Direct that I didn't realize the points above. I just hate to see all the STS infrastructure and workforce lost for the promise of a HLV somewhere down the road.

Bad phraseology on my part in the title of the thread, I sure hope no one took it as a flamebait post. I've gone back and forth from cheering on Bigelow and Musk and their accomplishments to my disappointment with NASA for the POR, and my hopes that NASA will return to the NASA I grew up with.

NASA can’t be the NASA you grew up with. I remember cheering at the launch of the shuttles in the 80ies and looking for all the news about the mission.

Things change and NASA must be in constant change to be relevant. I think NASA can do exploration and missions. I just question its need to own it’s own rockets to do it. CxP proved to me beyond a doubt that manned spaceflight was too important for NASA to be the only way to do it.

It wasn’t really the failure of cxp, but the retirement of the shuttle before a replacement was advanced enough, the idea of dumping the ISS at the first chance to fund moon landings and the possible reduction of all of American spaceflight to 2 short lunar sorties a year that turned me not only against cxp, but against the continuation of the status quo.

My dream is a NASA deep space mission enabled by commercial flight. Commercial launchers launching the pieces and commercial crew sending the astronauts. I want NASA to focus more on payloads than on rockets. I think it made sense for NASA to own the rocket until about the 80ies. As commercial came online, NASA should have looked at ways of using them with manned spaceflight.   For instance if commercial cargo had been used at the start of the ISS, nine space shuttle flights could have carried ISS modules instead of cargo. If the HL-20 had been built NASA could have had back up access to the station during the shuttle stand down using commercial rockets.

NASA owning it's own rockets would make sense if it could generate enough flights but there are not enough LEO and BEO missions to justify NASA owning its own rockets when the shuttle retires.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12941
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4001
  • Likes Given: 761
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #16 on: 09/06/2010 02:25 AM »
My question has to be does the author of this post understand that Spacex might be after this October launch 6-8 months from starting Cargo delivery to the ISS? Does the author also realize that Orbital Sciences is only 6 months away from testing their Taurus 2 vehicle and less than a year away from ISS cargo delivery as well? Does the author also realize that Boeing is well along with development of their CST-100 manned capsule and that at about the same time Spacex should have their own manned capsule ready as well. 2011 will be the year commercial cargo will be realized. There is no going back, one way or another commercial cargo spaceflight is going to be here next year. I suggest we get used to it. 

Change is coming, no doubt, via the ISS cargo contracts, but I'm not quite so optimistic about 2011.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm rooting for success.  But I also would not be at all surprised if, by the end of 2011, not one single successful commercial ISS cargo mission (by which I mean berthing and cargo delivery) has been performed. 

SpaceX has not yet flown a cleanly successful Falcon 9 ascent - and it has a long, long way to go before it has demonstrated a successful, controlled Dragon flight.  It has to do the Dragon thing at least a couple of times before NASA lets it carry ISS cargo.  Every single flight will have to succeeded between now and the end of next year for 2011 to become "the year of commercial cargo" for SpaceX.

Let's not forget that SpaceX has existed for more than eight years.  In that time, it has made only six launch attempts (only one by Falcon 9) and managed to orbit only one small, 180 kg satellite for a live customer.  It has never orbited its own spacecraft and controlled it in flight.

Orbital is even further behind.  It doesn't yet have a rocket or a launch pad.  Much of its hardware, both rocket and payload, is on the other side of the planet, subject to whatever trouble its many contractors encounter.  Whatever Taurus 2 delays we think we know about are probably only the tip of the iceberg.

One or both will likely get there, eventually.  I'm just not ready to believe it will be by the end of 2011. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/06/2010 02:25 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1923
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #17 on: 09/06/2010 02:31 AM »

Change is coming, no doubt, via the ISS cargo contracts, but I'm not quite so optimistic about 2011.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm rooting for success.  But I also would not be at all surprised if, by the end of 2011, not one single successful commercial ISS cargo mission (by which I mean berthing and cargo delivery) has been performed. 

SpaceX has not yet flown a cleanly successful Falcon 9 ascent - and it has a long, long way to go before it has demonstrated a successful, controlled Dragon flight.  It has to do the Dragon thing at least a couple of times before NASA lets it carry ISS cargo.  Every single flight will have to succeeded between now and the end of next year for 2011 to become "the year of commercial cargo" for SpaceX.

Let's not forget that SpaceX has existed for more than eight years.  In that time, it has made only six launch attempts (only one by Falcon 9) and managed to orbit only one small, 180 kg satellite for a live customer.  It has never orbited its own spacecraft and controlled it in flight.

Orbital is even further behind.  It doesn't yet have a rocket or a launch pad.  Much of its hardware, both rocket and payload, is on the other side of the planet, subject to whatever trouble its many contractors encounter.  Whatever Taurus 2 delays we think we know about are probably only the tip of the iceberg.

One or both will likely get there, eventually.  I'm just not ready to believe it will be by the end of 2011. 

 - Ed Kyle

I know. I wish that NASA hadn't rolled the dice with the ISS. I would have prefered that commercal cargo be up then retire the shuttle, but alas the 2010 retirement date was more important than anything else.

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #18 on: 09/06/2010 02:31 AM »
On the whole "Utah" thing, it does not matter if it was a quote or not.  It was the context of the sentance and how you used it.  I stand by my statement about your intended meaning, even if you try to back-track now. 

I am not back tracking it.  Experts in Utah always say Utah is needed, Experts in Hawthorne say Hawthrone is need.  In this situation the experts in Utah won out.

Quote
Another thing now, fly humans, "like the cargo they are, is an assanine statement.  Just theoretically, would buy a ticket on an airline that had an advertisement like "fly with us, and we will treat you like the cargo that you and all humans are".

In a capsule, the passengers will be almost completely out of the loop on the operation of the capsule.  It will handle everything without there control.  As far as the capsule & launcher is concerned, humans would be just very delicate cargo.  Capsules don't need pilots.

Quote
It is about doing what one believes it right and standing for something.  But you and others can call it as you will because you have been caught up in the "internet-feed" and if enough people say it on the internet, then it must be correct.

Last I checked, VERY learned people have come down on both sides of the issue.  I agree more with Sally Ride, and the rest of the Augustine commission on what can be done when you only get a 500 Million dollar increase in your budget in a year.  Go back to the charts, we are in the reality of the more constrained budget, did that one have 1-2 extra shuttle flights, and a fast tracked HLV?  The truth always lies in the numbers, not the verbiage.

Quote
I'm glad that you are a fiscal conservative, I am too.  More should be in my opinion.  Your statement however is flawed.  Government cannot share the costs with the "private sector" if the government is to be the only customer.  The private sector today is not going to just invest their capital money into something to provide to the government when they can sell it nowhere else.   That is the case right now for an HLV.  If there were demand right now for an HLV, beyond NASA use, and ULA or someone else was bending metal right now to give that capability, then NASA too could be a customer and a SDLV would be a waste.  Again, that is not the case. 

This is where I will be really unpopular.  As a fiscal conservative, I don't see NASA as being special enough to justify it's own HLV.  If commercial interests don't need it, then no HLV for NASA.  If exploration can not be done with commercially available launchers, no exploration for NASA.  That's true for every other nation, it should be true here to.

This was the big year for NASA, and it looks like at most it got 500 million dollars.  If this pattern holds, and in 2020 NASA still hasn't broken 25 billion a year, there will be no BEO, no matter the system.

Quote
People need to stop looking at this so black and white and see there is a future here for everyone to participate and stop drawing arbitrary battle lines. 

I whole heatedly agree, too bad some people like to refer to others opinion as, assanine, amusing,  or internet-feed.  In the end both sides of this issue have very valid points, and in the end the HLV/Shuttle extension advocates won the day. 

We now have 1 maybe 2 extra shuttle flights, a "fast tracked" HLV, and a budget below well below what the Austine commission said it would take to fund such as this.  Is running an Aerospace program well below it's projected costs ever a good idea?
« Last Edit: 09/06/2010 02:39 AM by SpacexULA »
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #19 on: 09/06/2010 06:30 AM »

I'm glad that you are a fiscal conservative, I am too.  More should be in my opinion.  Your statement however is flawed.  Government cannot share the costs with the "private sector" if the government is to be the only customer.  The private sector today is not going to just invest their capital money into something to provide to the government when they can sell it nowhere else.   That is the case right now for an HLV.  If there were demand right now for an HLV, beyond NASA use, and ULA or someone else was bending metal right now to give that capability, then NASA too could be a customer and a SDLV would be a waste.  Again, that is not the case. 

Given that, NASA should be able to choose what that HLV will be since they will be funding it.  From a cost perspective, that vehicle essentially exists today.  There is no need to re-invent the wheel.  In today's fiscal climate, we should be using what we have to the maximum extent possible.  While I certainly appreciate ULA, and no doubt they will play a role in the future, there is more to making a "EELV HLV" then you are giving credit.  That is publically available.  In addition, ,where does it address recurring and fixed costs for the "EELV HLV", given they will be pretty different?  

The Atlas 5 Phase 2 is a modular launch vehicle whose lesser iterations covers the payload range the current Atlas 5 does.  Therefore, it is an HLV that has cost sharing with the non-NASA exploration payload manifest.

President's FY2011 did not mandate a HLV.  The stated aim of the work proposed was to have common application across the current commercial launchers.  The decision on HLV was to be informed by determination of mission need in the studies on HLV and in the context of a fuel depot demonstration, which could have led a lesser case for it upon such informed determination.  An exploration architecture that tailored itself to the commercial launch market rather than to a HLV could have the mutual benefit described, and there was space for that option to emerge.

No, SDHLV it does not essentially exist.  It requires 15.8 billion in funding to create, according the HEFT report.  This is a considerable sum of money, in cost and opportunity cost.

The Atlas 5 Phase 2 is a second stage upgrade, and a first stage upgrade, from a team that has the most experienced hydrolox second stage development and operational workforce in the world, with the first stage upgrade work making use of the current engine model and tankage.  I put to you it is at least as "existent" as SDHLV, if not more.

The Atlas 5 Phase 2 upgrades the current Atlas, and would be the only model flown, or so I presume.

Offline MP99

Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #20 on: 09/06/2010 11:08 AM »
The Senate compromise is just as nebulous on it's time lines and goals

But note that the same bill mandates a commission to determine time lines & goals. It recognised they are required, unlike the original FY11.

cheers, Martin

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #21 on: 09/06/2010 01:09 PM »
lisb0n,

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361835main_08%20-%20ULA%20%201.0_Augustine_Public_6_17_09_final_R1.pdf

If the business case is there for ULA to proceed with Phase 2, why do they not do that then?  If they did, then perhaps you would have a point.  However, NASA need not pay ULA to develop an entire "spectrum" of Atlas 5 replacements just so you can have your "modular HLV" and not have a SDLV, which in reality I believe is probably where much more of the weight of your opinion lies. 

Maybe it is because of this.

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/09/05/commercial-crew-eelv-and-avoiding-repeating-history/

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: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #22 on: 09/06/2010 02:00 PM »


This is where I will be really unpopular.  As a fiscal conservative, I don't see NASA as being special enough to justify it's own HLV.  If commercial interests don't need it, then no HLV for NASA.  If exploration can not be done with commercially available launchers, no exploration for NASA.  That's true for every other nation, it should be true here to.


I guess I need to debate this point.  Being a fiscal conservative is one thing, saying it can't be done because other nations, etc don't do it either is another. 

The USA used to be a Nation that was not afraid to be different and did not worry about "what other nations do" in order to be like them.  That is the difference between being a leader and a follower.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2010 02:02 PM by OV-106 »
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: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #23 on: 09/06/2010 03:18 PM »
In a capsule, the passengers will be almost completely out of the loop on the operation of the capsule.  It will handle everything without there control.  As far as the capsule & launcher is concerned, humans would be just very delicate cargo.  Capsules don't need pilots.


Does the crew "fly" the shuttle uphill? 

I think you may find that statement is a bit too far. 
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: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #24 on: 09/06/2010 03:20 PM »
Is running an Aerospace program well below it's projected costs ever a good idea?

Will it be tight?  Yes it will be.  Will everyone and everything have to be efficient?  Yes.  Is that not what everyone wants?

Do you think the Senate just threw numbers at a dart board when deriving these numbers and wanted to spend money for the sake of spending money?  I know what you, and likely others will say, but that makes no logical sense. 
« Last Edit: 09/06/2010 03:34 PM by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #25 on: 09/07/2010 01:42 AM »
I am under the impression that she just wants to keep furthering her personal agenda politically, and space is just a tool for her to do so.
    Where does this impression stem from? Glancing at her bio, it doesn't seem like she has sought any elected political office, and all her work has been in the area of space policy. What personal agenda outside space policy, for which space policy is supposedly just a tool, are you referring to?
    -Alex

Offline Space Invaders

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Europe
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #26 on: 09/07/2010 09:32 AM »
It's just a feeling, nothing more. Don't take it as anything more than my opinion.  :)

I just find it weird that a true space advocate would want to limit us to LEO. What would you think if the head of the US Maritime Service suggested that American boats should restrict themselves to the continental shelf and no further?

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #27 on: 09/07/2010 12:06 PM »
I just find it weird that a true space advocate would want to limit us to LEO. What would you think if the head of the US Maritime Service suggested that American boats should restrict themselves to the continental shelf and no further?

Nobody is trying to limit anyone to LEO.  Different people have different opinions on what the future budget profile of NASA will be, and different levels of confidence that NASA has it in them to produce another self designed LV. 

My extreme pessimism about NASA's future budget leads me to want to get some type of LV man rated as fast as possible, and to obligate as little money as possible in the budget LV to development and as much as possible to near term development of in space infrastructure.

I feel the future for NASA is going include a lot of budget cutting like is happening at the ESA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/06/AR2010090603880.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

If that's the case we could end up at best with a HLV and barely enough to operate it, much less develop payloads for it, or at worst a 2/3 developed HLV, no budget to finish it in a timely manner, and no budget for serious payloads.  Considering that would basically be the end of NASA (and congress would yet again blame NASA for not delivering, even though they where never given a real chance), it's a future I want a 0 percent chance of.

I seriously hope I am wrong, and others are right, and the future is full of 1 & 2 billion a year budget increases for NASA, but this year has reduced my confidence in this outcome.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #28 on: 09/07/2010 12:29 PM »
My extreme pessimism about NASA's future budget leads me to want to get some type of LV man rated as fast as possible, and to obligate as little money as possible in the budget LV to development and as much as possible to near term development of in space infrastructure.

Why do you believe Congress would even consider funding fuel depots before establishing a definite, near term beyond LEO destination? And other than LEO fuel depots, what in space infrastructure do you foresee being valuable?

As for future NASA budget woes, those concerns suggest that commercial space advocates should embrace this suggestion by Mary Roach, author of recently popular book "Packing for Mars" (See page 251-252)
 
Quote
The Stratos Mission is funded in large part by Baumgartner's corporate sponsor, RedBull. Sponsoring extreme athletes is RedBull's way of telling the world that the brand stands not just for caffeinated pop, but for, as the press releases say, "pushing limits" and "making the impossible happen." Teenage boys with little hope of becoming pro skateboarders or record breaking BASE jumpers can nonetheless drink the drink and feel the feeling. NASA might do well to adopt the RedBull approach to branding and astronautics. Suddenly the man in the spacesuit is not an underpaid civil servant; he's the ultimate extreme athlete. RedBull knows how to make space hip.

= = =

Edit to add:

If a House / Senate compromise bill passes unanimously (or near unanimously) then fears of future NASA budget cuts could be exaggerated since such cuts can only come from Congress.

And, I believe actually flying the Jupiter 130 as soon as possible is NASA's best defense against future budget cuts.
« Last Edit: 09/07/2010 01:08 PM by Bill White »
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12941
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4001
  • Likes Given: 761
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #29 on: 09/07/2010 01:31 PM »
And, I believe actually flying the Jupiter 130 as soon as possible is NASA's best defense against future budget cuts.
I've had a problem with the DIRECT proposal from day one.  I can't abide the use of the name "Jupiter". 

A photo of a real Jupiter rocket, the von Braun team's first "modern" space-age rocket, is attached.  Jupiter served as the first stage of NASA's Juno II launcher, and tanks built using Jupiter tooling served as the core, the keel or foundation if you will, of Saturn, America's first super-booster.  A series of test flights using Redstone missiles in support of Jupiter development led to the use of "Jupiter A" and "Jupiter C" vehicle monikers.  The first U.S. satellite was launched on a slightly modified Jupiter C renamed, practically after the fact, "Juno I".

The name has deep historical significance.  Build and fly this DIRECT launcher if you will, but please don't call it "Jupiter"!

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/07/2010 01:49 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Liked: 205
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #30 on: 09/07/2010 02:04 PM »
The name has deep historical significance.  Build and fly this DIRECT launcher if you will, but please don't call it "Jupiter"!
 - Ed Kyle

Jupiter is a bit quick on the name reuse for my tastes, as well, but...

With that mindset the present orbiter fleet would all need different names, as surely the great exploration ships and their names are sacred- wouldn't want to name another exploration ship after one, right?

Offline mjcrsmith

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 193
  • Harvard, IL
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #31 on: 09/07/2010 02:15 PM »
The name has deep historical significance.  Build and fly this DIRECT launcher if you will, but please don't call it "Jupiter"!
 - Ed Kyle

Jupiter is a bit quick on the name reuse for my tastes, as well, but...

With that mindset the present orbiter fleet would all need different names, as surely the great exploration ships and their names are sacred- wouldn't want to name another exploration ship after one, right?

Like Enterprise???

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #32 on: 09/07/2010 02:16 PM »
Quote
Which one of these is the major launcher of science missions, supports our defense forces, and provides the greatest service to the private sector?

Wait, wait: Don't tell me...

Quote
...any other company or organization for that matter, is any better with their political machines and lobbying tactics.  In other words, it cuts both ways and again so many on here refuse to see that or acknowledge that because of political "bias"...

I hear that.  Which gets to one of the arguments I make regarding guarantees of accomplishment.  There are so many moving targets and so many organizations pulling the rug out from other organizations; hardly a wonder that our progress is in fits and starts.  Just me whining about lack of cooperation and the mal-effects of politics run amok. "Our experts in Utah", indeed.

Quote
I suggest we get used to it.

A bit of jumping the gun.  We'll get used to it sometime after it happens.  I cherish the thought of there soon being that time.  Until then, we have to concern ourselves with creating a new government owned LV, and that in an expeditious, responsible fashion.  At the same time, we need to get the mission priorities straight; which puts NEO's down on the list; Moon first, particularly prop ISRU; and Mars second, particularly the exo-biology question.  The depot/hotel infrastructure, probably first in LEO needs to be concurrent with the first two.  Then we will have what it takes to study NEO's at our leisure, and to whatever advantage they may provide.

Quote
Trust me on this, the management reserve in these bids is going to overwhelm the differences in cost efficiencies or design efficiencies,”

Trust me on this...  They are not willing to work in cost or design efficiencies anyhow, no matter the contract language.  They being management, whether government or private.  The casual analysis calls it greed, because such risk aversion seems unrealistic as a cause.  Elsewhere, I suggest putting four or eight probes on a launcher.  "OH NO!  We can't do that!"  Those who would know best how to do this will not discuss it.  I dunno, does the FAR have some language in it about avoiding efficiency at all costs?

SpacexULA:

[/quote]FY2011 as written by the administration would have subjected NASA to a similar reform to what we forced the Air Force though 20 years ago.  It served them well, and 20 years from now this reform would have served NASA well.[/quote]

OV, I think you miss an important point.  FY2011 sure seems to have been an attempt at "reform", and the ensuing debate sure has, to me, a "reformist" attitude about it.  And there's plenty still to reform, which is why I would want the new LV delayed a bit more, while we fly the shuttle five or siz more times, and see how NewSpace delivers.  These new "facts on the ground" will provide a good bit of information as to what the new government LV should be.

There's still too much premature program cancellation, due to lack of program oversight and too many alternative legal paths which limit accomplishment.  Witness the perfectly legal terminations from some months ago; the current pad demolition operations soon to be underway; the tower abandonment accompanied by calls for a new tower, sans LV.

So we still need reform.  I would say, maybe:  No new LV till I say so?  Don't make me turn this planet around....

Quote
In that time, it has made only six launch attempts...

...and I've made how many attempts?  Oh.  Right. This is not about me.  People are gonna complain:  Look, Ares was painted a different color than Falcon.  You can't compare apples and oranges, but that's wrong.  In this business, I think it's about time to start comparing apples and oranges.  Why does this delicio.us little red apple cost $500M, but this huge, pulpy orange cost $13B?  What apple do you get when you give pre-reform NASA $500M?  Hint: we're sending it to the scrapyard, unused.

So yeah, NewSpace is somewhat behind schedule.  And the "experts in Utah" are ahead of schedule?

Quote
I whole heatedly agree, too bad some people like to refer to others opinion as, assanine, amusing,  or internet-feed.

Point taken, I hope?  It's not personal, OV.

Quote
But note that the same bill mandates a commission to determine time lines & goals.

Another good point made, and a valuable tool towards accountability.

Froma that SpacePolitics article that OV posted:

Quote
At one point in the 1990s Lockheed had a conservative forecast of 19 Atlas 5 launches a year; current launch rates are instead about five a year, virtually all for government customers.

I don't know why that is, but these vehicles could launch something inanimate to the ISS, and a fair amount of something at that.  I expect to be told that they use square docking rings, not round ones, and thus it would be impossible to even discuss the possible use of these reliable launch vehicles; the continuation of  five or six shuttle flights; the temporary delay of new LV construction; and the proving of NewSpace abilities.

Also, the article talks about the $4B that these poor, destitute, disadvantaged companies, with virtually no Congessional support, and not a negative cash flow to be seen in their statements, and ... Wait a minute.  Do I hear violins in the distance?

Quote
... before establishing a definite, near term beyond LEO destination ...

Can you say, "Goodnight Moon?"  Not you personally, just in general.  I bet Mary Roach can.  Just call the new LV "Alice".  Like the way Mr. Gleason used to say it: "One of these days... to the Moon, Alice!" 
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10608
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2743
  • Likes Given: 1012
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #33 on: 09/07/2010 03:56 PM »
And, I believe actually flying the Jupiter 130 as soon as possible is NASA's best defense against future budget cuts.

I've had a problem with the DIRECT proposal from day one.  I can't abide the use of the name "Jupiter". 

Jupiter served as the first stage of NASA's Juno II launcher, and tanks built using Jupiter tooling served as the core, the keel or foundation if you will, of Saturn, America's first super-booster.  A series of test flights using Redstone missiles in support of Jupiter development led to the use of "Jupiter A" and "Jupiter C" vehicle monikers.  The name has deep historical significance.  Build and fly this DIRECT launcher if you will, but please don't call it "Jupiter"!

 - Ed Kyle

Ed, Vehicle and vessel names are reused all the time. It's the significance and history of the name that's important. Unlike sports star jersey numbers, these names are never retired. There is no reason not to reuse an honored name for a new vehicle.

For example, we selected the name "Jupiter" for several reasons; all of them related to the original Jupiter rocket and its true successor the Saturn.

Like the original, the Jupiter-130 is the core of something greater. Von Braun had a much larger LV in mind when he flew the Jupiter. He was thinking about Nova, which eventually became the Saturn-V. The J-130 is also the core of something bigger – the J-246. There is a series of historical articles in the annals of LV development called "They Would Be Giants" that you will find fascinating.

Like the original, DIRECT's Jupiter reuses the existing tooling and infrastructure to create something bigger, something better than its predecessor. Like the original, it seeks to honor its predecessor as it builds upon itself in the same way.

Finally, in a nod to what brought the DIRECT team together in the first place is Griffin's desire to build the biggest rocket in the world. He wanted the Ares-V to be bigger and more powerful than the Saturn-V. So we named it "Jupiter" because the planet Jupiter is bigger than the planet Saturn, the name of the rocket that Griffin wanted so much to eclipse.

Having said all that we really don't care what they call it, we never have cared. We needed a good name and designation series that would honor where all this came from as well as describe what was sitting on the pad. But we always stated that once NASA took ownership that we fully expect them to call it something else, perhaps even "Ares" again. We really don't care. So your distaste is, I believe with all my heart, to be short-lived. I don't know what they will call it but I'm reasonably sure it will not be "Jupiter".
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #34 on: 09/07/2010 06:30 PM »

OV, I think you miss an important point.  FY2011 sure seems to have been an attempt at "reform", and the ensuing debate sure has, to me, a "reformist" attitude about it.  And there's plenty still to reform, which is why I would want the new LV delayed a bit more, while we fly the shuttle five or siz more times, and see how NewSpace delivers.  These new "facts on the ground" will provide a good bit of information as to what the new government LV should be.

 

I can very comfortably assure you I have not missed any important points. 

I and many others have a job to do.  Jobs that are key to whatever nebulous future that someone, somewhere, at some point decides will be the future direction.

I, and others, have not asked or expected special treatment.  Our futures though are at stake.  As of right now, we are the living dead.  Still required to do the job and achieve the goals this Nation and this agency currently have, but expendible enough that we stand ready to be jettisoned at the first oppurtunity. 

With that, we, if we so choose, can particpate in the debate about the "reform" as you call it.  Yet, there are absolutes.  Ideally, flying the shuttle longer as you suggested was the correct strategic move in the first place.  That did not and will not happen.  Within these absolutes there are certain realities.  If shuttle is not going to fly longer, than in order to proceed with a SDLV then that work needs to be started sooner than later in order to capitalize on the end of shuttle and still get or retain some of the more important technical know-how, cost and schedule benefits.  We also realize there are some who do not want this in any way.  That is fine too but what we have been called on "the internet" by some is nothing but uninformed, rude and insulting. 

If SDLV does not happen, fine too.  It is beyond time to choose a path and try to make something happen.  No one is going to be totally happy, let alone the "space community" and the "internet".  However, I promise you and everyone this, any HLV will happen much further in the future and will be more expensive or, at very least but unlikely, no less expensive to develop. 

The reasons are simple.  One being that there is not any technology on the horizon that is on the cusp or revolutionizing transport to orbit.  It will all involve smoke and fire.  Second, when creating a launch vehicle there are a lot of DDT&E costs, vendors that must be brought online and certified, facilities that this must be done at as well, etc.  You can minimize that by starting further in the chain with something one has now, understands and using that to get where you need to be.  Especially in this fiscal climate.

I understand and appreciate ULA too and what others have said about EELV.  Yet, at the same time, some are missing the finer points.  The devil that lives in the details if you will.  ULA is not going to provide, at their expense, an HLV to NASA so NASA then just has to pay for the trip.  What ULA has shown publically about how to evolve the EELV's is perfectly valid.  Yet it is not just strap an extra core to it and we're done.  To get to the SDLV-lift class there is a lot of work that has to be done.  There is new infrastructure that is needed.  In the end, they are "new" rockets.  Yes, they may have heritage to EELV but SDLV has the same heritage to Shuttle.  Mind you with SDLV, the orbiter, the most expensive hardware piece within the Space Shuttle Program, is gone.  I have seen nothing official from anyone that shows an EELV-based HLV will have major and life-altering lower fixed costs than a SDLV.  Again, that may be because the "standard" EELV and EELV-HLV will be so different.  It should not be NASA's function to provide ULA with the money to develop a whole new family of Atlas, the phase 2, just so we can one day have the "modular HLV". 

There are those who say we don't need an HLV.  Fine, I respect their opinions.  But, in the end, they are just that.  Given the "nebulous" future, there is no certainty on prop depots, how they will be serviced, by who, by what and when, etc.  There is no certainty that everything can be launched on EELV-class payloads.  There is no certainty that you do not miss the "sweet-spot" where one is spending more to assemble everything in orbit, the launches required, etc than if an HLV was in the mix.  So it is a choice.  A choice ultimately made by the powers-that-be with the technical advisements of NASA and industry.  One day, if commercial operations support a true "commercial HLV" that NASA can buy the services from because the market has driven companies to invest their money in that development, the SDLV should and will be retired.  That is not today however. 

For those that say we should wait.  Well, then it comes down to spending more money long term and every organization that has been charged officially to study it, has officially said, as a body, we will need an HLV.  This is another one of those "realities and absolutes" that the decision makers see and they see there is no reason to waste resources to recreate what essentially exists now. 

There are teams in work studying how this new architecutre is implemented.  How it uses SDLV and commercial launchers.  How it using Orion (MPCV) and potential commercial space vehicles (not just the rockets).  The results of these studies need to be documented.  They need to be studied and analyzed by others.  They need to reviewed by the "space community" before arbitrarily being shouted down, with the same shallow rationale that is repeated over and over again by "user names on the internet".

So, all of this to say and help you understand that I do get it.  I don't only get it, I am part of it.  I, and many others, hope to continue to be a part of it, knowing full well it won't be the job we have today if we are even lucky enough to continue with an industry we love and cause we believe is just.  Yet we need to finish this job, and finish it well, and we strive for that every day.  All the while wondering what tomorrow brings. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #35 on: 09/07/2010 07:18 PM »
Quote
1. we, if we so choose, can particpate in the debate about the "reform" as you call it. 

2.  That did not and will not happen.  Within these absolutes there are certain realities. 

3. If shuttle is not going to fly longer, than in order to proceed with a SDLV then that work needs to be started sooner than later in order to capitalize on the end of shuttle and still get or retain ... 

4. If SDLV does not happen, fine too.

5. There is not any technology on the horizon that is on the cusp or revolutionizing transport to orbit.

6. I  understand and appreciate ULA too ...

7. There are those who say we don't need an HLV.

8. ... there is no certainty on prop depots... There is no certainty that you do not miss the "sweet-spot" where one is spending more to assemble everything in orbit...


1.  Just as long as we're clear, that I'm not in charge here.  "Reform" is indeed a good term to use, and it is needed all up and down the line.  FY2011 can certainly be characterized as "nebulous", and I would say that the "reforms" is sorta sideways hinted at were also "nebulous".  The fact of the matter, taken as a whole, there's too much wasted money and too little mature oversight, at least, for example, if I'm reading Sutton correctly, on that one issue.

2.  Well, I'm not giving up just yet on that opinion of mine, for what that's worth.

3.  I couldn't agree more.  We both know that the devil is in the details, and you more than I, in the SD part of that.

4.  Fine, if that's what it takes to slap some sense in these pols.  I will not be happy, tho.

5.  And I wish the Administration would never bring that wispy, mushy subject up again.

6.  I pretty much agree with your fairly well reasoned remarks in that paragraph.  That's the kind of discussion that will move progress forward.

7.  I say, wait a bit, and let the future capabilities evolve some more.  I acknowledge your later argument about the definite need for HLV; I think it should more probably be at least 100t.  If the first Jupiter is "only" 70t, fine.  But there should be new RP-1 boosters which make 100T the new "floor".  Commercial will catch up in due course.

8.  There should be certainty on this issue.  Legislative certainty.  Fixed masses.  Call it ACES-41, which is doable by current EELV's, no? and don't change it.  Endless study over the last few ounces of propellant are killing the idea.  It could upgrade to ACES-71 or ACES -101, pending the new commercial developments.

Let's not worry so much about the theoretical optimization of some uncertain "sweet spot".  All of the assumptions are vanity.  Vanity, vanity, vanity...  Ooops.  I'm rambling.

No matter what, we have to get good at in-space assembly and prop transfer.  Let the interplanetary ships get as big as they need to get.  Let's go from LEO to L1 and the Moon with fewer bigger pieces.  Drop the prop from the Moon and then I believe the sweet spot will be the all-too maligned LEO.  Don't fight it.  Embrace it.

Quote
the same shallow rationale that is repeated over and over again by "user names on the internet".

At least I don't do that.  Some of those other posters (I know who you are, OV) would change their tone if they were brave enough to have real names.  And perhaps our bandwidth wouldn't be so clogged with emotion.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1663
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #36 on: 09/07/2010 08:53 PM »
...
In a capsule, the passengers will be almost completely out of the loop on the operation of the capsule.  It will handle everything without there control.  As far as the capsule & launcher is concerned, humans would be just very delicate cargo.  Capsules don't need pilots.
....

Orion's pilots will have in-the-loop control on many phases of operation, such as launch abort, orbital burn abort, 6DOF proximity ops, docking, remote control from other spacecraft, and entry/landing (roll).

Buran was launched and landed without pilots inside, so the "capsules don't need pilots" statement means nothing. Winged spacecraft may not need pilots... so what ?!

It's the mission that matters, not the shape of the vehicle. I apologize if it sounds like I'm lecturing you, but your statements are shocking.

« Last Edit: 09/07/2010 09:29 PM by renclod »

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1663
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #37 on: 09/07/2010 09:23 PM »
...why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?


Lori Garver seems to be immune to the risk of killing existing NASA/contractors HSF expertise. Charlie Bolden -  not so much. Lori Garver is an expert in politics. Charlie Bolden has flown the Shuttle. Lori Garver has 5 strategic needs for NASA to serve, and none has anything to do with manned space exploration. Charlie Bolden said Joe Shmuck won't make an ascan. Lori Garver finds a potential victory in the Senate Bill. Charlie Bolden is MIA.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10608
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2743
  • Likes Given: 1012
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #38 on: 09/07/2010 09:31 PM »
I have said this on other threads and it is just as true here.

It is a dangerous thing to ascribe motive to anyone for the things that they do.
We would all do well to examine what she has or has not done and discuss the implications of those, but steer clear of making pronouncements wrt to "why" she did or did not do something. There is really no way of knowing short of asking her. Has anyone on this thread actually done that?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #39 on: 09/07/2010 10:17 PM »
...why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?


Lori Garver seems to be immune to the risk of killing existing NASA/contractors HSF expertise. Charlie Bolden -  not so much. Lori Garver is an expert in politics. Charlie Bolden has flown the Shuttle. Lori Garver has 5 strategic needs for NASA to serve, and none has anything to do with manned space exploration. Charlie Bolden said Joe Shmuck won't make an ascan. Lori Garver finds a potential victory in the Senate Bill. Charlie Bolden is MIA.


I.  NASA HSF doesn't matter, US HSF is what matters
2.  The 5 strategic needs are NASA's and not Garver's
3.  NASA's charter says nothing about  manned space exploration

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #40 on: 09/07/2010 10:21 PM »

Orion's pilots will have in-the-loop control on many phases of operation, such as launch abort, orbital burn abort, 6DOF proximity ops, docking, remote control from other spacecraft, and entry/landing (roll).

Most will be in a backup role.  Most of the missions can be done autonomously.

There is inertial at JSC to keep some things for the astronauts to do so that they can have some control vs being passengers.

« Last Edit: 09/07/2010 10:22 PM by Jim »

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #41 on: 09/08/2010 01:47 AM »
There is inertia at JSC to keep some things for the astronauts to do so that they can have some control vs being passengers.

In general it is cheaper to train an astronaut to fly a vehicle then it is to design a fool-proof automated system to fly the vehicle. Obviously there are reasons why most vehicles need to be able to fly autonomously, but it does come at a cost. There is also an issue with trying to attract the best to the astronaut core and keeping good morale; massaging commanders' egos might not be that big a sacrifice in that respect.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2010 01:50 AM by madscientist197 »
John

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #42 on: 09/08/2010 01:52 AM »


In general it is cheaper to train an astronaut to fly a vehicle then it is to design a fool-proof automated system to fly the vehicle. Obviously there are reasons why most vehicles need to be able to fly autonomously, but it does come at a cost. There is also an issue with trying to attract the best to the astronaut core and keeping good morale; massaging commanders' egos might not be that big a sacrifice in that respect.

Which is a larger cost.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #43 on: 09/08/2010 03:51 AM »
I'd like to continue talking about the A5P2 for a bit.

Imagine current ULA operations using the Atlas 5 Phase 2 instead of the current Atlas 5, as in considering the costs of a post developed product.   Fixed costs would be less than they are now.*  That is because multiple second stage and fairing component suppliers would be consolidated around a single stage for both ULA vehicles, and would be producing more of those components.  Production and operation of the A5P2 would still make use of and occur at existing consolidated ULA facilities.

Further NASA usage of whatever extent can build upon that base.

*To account for known and unknown unknowns, in the same ballpark.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2010 03:53 AM by libs0n »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #44 on: 09/08/2010 01:58 PM »
1. It is a dangerous thing to ascribe motive to anyone for the things that they do.

2. We would all do well to ... steer clear of making pronouncements wrt to "why" she did or did not do something. There is really no way of knowing short of asking her.

3. Has anyone on this thread actually done that?

1. So true, but all of this activity is willfully chosen activity by conscious human beings.  Therefore, there is always motive.  Even "knee-jerk" reactions are choices.  I've been trying to figure out how to characterize the last forty years of LEO.  First thing I came up with: "We have been compelled to stay on planet".  Well, nobody likes to hear the term "compelled", because it ascribes motive.  So I've come up with the idea of "functional compulsion", tentatively.

Since we have stayed in LEO for forty years, it's the functional equivalent to the possible stated motive of such a compulsion.  Nobody wants to stay only on planet, except for the non-existant cabal of people who do and who exert such tremendous influence on the rest of us.  Today, I'm thinking that the functional compulsion results from the repeated short term failures to implement goals.  Repeat the failures for forty years, and it looks exactly like we never intended to leave the planet, so people are naturally inclined to ask "Why?".  Ipso fatso, this thread and a host of others.

2. So true, but then, what's the point of her job again?  What good is she doing?  She's far too important to post here under her own name.  So again, what good is she doing?

3. An impossible catch-22 if there ever was one.  We can't ask her and she won't answer if asked.  A shiny new dollar bill sez I'm right.  She is in a political position, and will do what she is told until the Prez is displeased by her actions.

So what is an American peon like me supposed to do?  Spout off here is about it, eh?

I.  NASA HSF doesn't matter, US HSF is what matters
2.  The 5 strategic needs are NASA's and not Garver's
3.  NASA's charter says nothing about  manned space exploration.

I.   True, and I'm in complete agreement.
II.  Sam ting.
III. Which is a technicality that I cannot fathom, and am free to ignore, since HSF is pretty much what NASA does, for me.

...why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?

My innocent answer is that NASA is not doing the job properly, and maybe we're seeing a type of reform being enacted, with the laudable goal of getting accountability for the accomplishment of American HSF.  So it's a risk she, and others, are willing to take.

1. Lori Garver seems to be immune to the risk of killing existing NASA/contractors HSF expertise. Charlie Bolden - not so much.

2. Lori Garver is an expert in politics. Charlie Bolden has flown the Shuttle.

3. Lori Garver has 5 strategic needs for NASA to serve, and none has anything to do with manned space exploration. Charlie Bolden said Joe Shmuck won't make an ascan.

4. Lori Garver finds a potential victory in the Senate Bill. Charlie Bolden is MIA.

1. It seems that he takes most of the arrows, and she can hide behind him.  So far, none of the arrows have totally penetrated thru to her?

2. That's the commonly held opinion.  I don't know her from Eve.

3. I took a quick googol to no avail.  What are these five things?

4. I kinda like the Senate bill.  I'm not Mr. Bolden's keeper in this regard.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1663
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #45 on: 09/12/2010 07:49 PM »
...
... 3. Lori Garver has 5 strategic needs for NASA to serve, and none has anything to do with manned space exploration.
...
3. I took a quick googol to no avail.  What are these five things?
...

The quick googol won't help a bit, following the situation as it developes does.
Side question: do you remember anything Shana Dale said or wrote ? I don't - and I do keep up with NASA politics best I can, for years.

Now back to the five things;

The first (IIRC) public remarks delivered by NASA Deputy Administrator Lori B. Garver after confirmation (aggravating circumstances ... LOL)  were recorded at AIAA Space 2009 Conference and Exposition, Pasadena, California September 14, 2009. And what do we learn:

"Knowing our planet’s vital signs in real time,
advanced technology that could produce green energy for  transportation,
merging space and ground data to help disaster victims,
using the space station for medical research, and
seeking new ways to keep astronauts safe no matter where they travel,

all of these examples tell us how much NASA contributes to improving life
on Earth – and in space.
...
I know there are those who are skeptical that NASA can change in such a
substantial way...."


Now I agree - the fifth "example" is a bit shocking, coming from Garver, but it may be she had a specific Houston to Orlando astronaut travel in mind when she wrote that ;)

Note the emphasis on "substantial change"... Garver is not talking about some change like from LEO to BEO, oh no...

Then, a month after the infamous 2011 budget came out, Deputy Admin follows in full swing :
[Remarks ... American Astronautical Society 48th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium, Greenbelt, MD March 10, 2010]

"The President’s budget, should it be approved by Congress, will enable NASA to align with the priorities of the Nation and to more optimally contribute to our Nation’s future.
These key national priorities that I am referring to are:

 Economic development (poverty, hunger, jobs)
 International leadership/geo-politics (world peace)
 Education (societal advancement)
 Environment (future of planet and humanity)"


OK I concede - only 4 not 5.

« Last Edit: 09/12/2010 08:19 PM by renclod »

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #46 on: 09/12/2010 07:53 PM »
My question has to be does the author of this post understand that Spacex might be after this October launch 6-8 months from starting Cargo delivery to the ISS? Does the author also realize that Orbital Sciences is only 6 months away from testing their Taurus 2 vehicle and less than a year away from ISS cargo delivery as well? Does the author also realize that Boeing is well along with development of their CST-100 manned capsule and that at about the same time Spacex should have their own manned capsule ready as well. 2011 will be the year commercial cargo will be realized. There is no going back, one way or another commercial cargo spaceflight is going to be here next year. I suggest we get used to it. 
commercial cargo next year ? ...     I will believe it when it happens.

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #47 on: 09/12/2010 07:59 PM »
 
Garver likes commercial because..  1.   her boss says that...  and   2.     she thinks  Nasa made everything seem much harder than it is.....  ( they didnt , it is very hard !!! ).
witness  Rutan's space ship one............
However,  Rutan only went  1500 mph...   and it was not easy nor cheap......     17,500   up then down...  that separates the men from the boys.
We succeeded because we had the best in the country, maybe the world,  and I am not sure even Nasa has that right now.   
« Last Edit: 09/12/2010 08:00 PM by dks13827 »

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #48 on: 09/12/2010 08:07 PM »
 
Sally Ride is an EXTREME  PARTISAN  and that taints one's thinking....  those of us who dont think quite that way can never understand it.  Witness the large number of folks who say the President is the greatest thing there  ever was !!!!!!!!!
Also, hardball politics.....  Utah and Texas are not exactly the most friendly states to the Administration, so punish the heck out of them !!!!!   (   news flash:  this stuff is done all the time !!! )

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #49 on: 09/12/2010 08:11 PM »


Ask yourself:   do you believe  Kraft, Kranz, Cernan, Lovell, Armstrong, Schmitt   don't really know what they are talking about ??   I feel sorry for those who would say.. right,, they dont know what they are talking about.

Let's put those guys on one team and the internet kids on the other team and see what happens.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7545
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1755
  • Likes Given: 394
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #50 on: 09/12/2010 08:13 PM »
Let's put those guys on one team

With or without the blank checks of the Apollo era?

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #51 on: 09/12/2010 08:29 PM »
Folks who think NEO missions are just a little bit more than lunar missions might look up the delta V for NEO vs Mars missions.

Delta Vs for most asteroids are greater than required for Mars, flight times are similar, launch windows significantly smaller, question is whether asteroids are really where you would want to start deep space space exploration – Mike Griffin
« Last Edit: 09/12/2010 09:37 PM by dks13827 »

Offline Rabidpanda

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 572
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #52 on: 09/12/2010 09:09 PM »

Folks who think NEO missions are just a little bit more than lunar missions might look up the delta V for NEO vs Mars missions.

LEO to lunar surface: 5.93 km/s
LEO to a close NEO: 5.22 km/s
LEO to Martian surface: 10.22 km/s

Source: en.wikipedia.net/wiki/Delta-V_Budget 

What exactly are you getting at?

Offline NotGncDude

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • V
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #53 on: 09/12/2010 10:26 PM »

Quote
In that time, it has made only six launch attempts...

...and I've made how many attempts?  Oh.  Right. This is not about me.  People are gonna complain:  Look, Ares was painted a different color than Falcon.  You can't compare apples and oranges, but that's wrong.  In this business, I think it's about time to start comparing apples and oranges.  Why does this delicio.us little red apple cost $500M, but this huge, pulpy orange cost $13B?  What apple do you get when you give pre-reform NASA $500M?  Hint: we're sending it to the scrapyard, unused.

So yeah, NewSpace is somewhat behind schedule.  And the "experts in Utah" are ahead of schedule?
 

Oh snap!

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1923
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #54 on: 09/12/2010 10:52 PM »

Garver likes commercial because..  1.   her boss says that...  and   2.     she thinks  Nasa made everything seem much harder than it is.....  ( they didnt , it is very hard !!! ).
witness  Rutan's space ship one............
However,  Rutan only went  1500 mph...   and it was not easy nor cheap......     17,500   up then down...  that separates the men from the boys.
We succeeded because we had the best in the country, maybe the world,  and I am not sure even Nasa has that right now.   

No, there is a song from sesame street that describes this situation: "Put down the dukie". Spaceflight is hard, no one is discounting that but NASA does not have the resources to be and do all things regarding spaceflight.  I love baking bread as an hobby but if I had to bake bread everyday it would take time and resources away from other things. Outsourcing is as old as civilization. Every time you buy a meal rather than cook it yourself you have outsource. Every time you shop rather than grow your own food or clothing you have outsourced.

What the FY2011 people want is a NASA that can do LEO missions along with BEO missions. CXP was going to abandon LEO for BEO to free up money for the heavy lift. What commercial does is it frees up money for NASA to do other things. What commercial does is make more efficient use of existing resources (the EELV and transport better optimized to roles).

NASA has figured out how to make a staged liquid fueled rocket go in to orbit. They have even figured out how to take one to the moon. What they have not figured out is how to do BEO flight sustainable. This is where the smart people need to be, not figuring out how to turn the shuttle into an HLV. 

Offline Tony Ostinato

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #55 on: 09/12/2010 11:04 PM »
perhaps she has eyes, that are hooked to a brain, and watched the spacex and nasa tests on youtube and came to the same conclusion anyone with eyes and a brain would, nasa is losin' it.

ares-1x with a dummy 2nd stage that the first stage rams into.

falcon9 with a working 2nd stage.

orion crashes.

dragon gently sets down perfectly.

maybe we need to give eyes and brains to our opinions.

where did all that nasa money go anyways?, not towards a working rocket thats for sure.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1923
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #56 on: 09/12/2010 11:18 PM »
perhaps she has eyes, that are hooked to a brain, and watched the spacex and nasa tests on youtube and came to the same conclusion anyone with eyes and a brain would, nasa is losin' it.

ares-1x with a dummy 2nd stage that the first stage rams into.

falcon9 with a working 2nd stage.

orion crashes.

dragon gently sets down perfectly.

maybe we need to give eyes and brains to our opinions.

where did all that nasa money go anyways?, not towards a working rocket thats for sure.

NASA is capable but atm they are ham strung.  Political reality supports shuttle derived even if shuttle derived isn't the best tool(Ares-1).  NASA choose an Orion capable of lunar flight almost asap(block I is LEO only but has many lunar requirements). This drives up the cost for ISS missions with Orion.

Like Orion, Apollo had a need for a LEO booster. NASA wisely choose the existing Saturn I. They upgraded it to Saturn IB and Apollo could do it's unmanned LEO tests without much delay.

Imagine if Orion were on an EELV and NASA put that $10 billion into an HLV, instead of Ares 1. They might not have made it but they would be much closer to the goal today.


Offline MP99

Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #57 on: 09/13/2010 12:47 AM »

Folks who think NEO missions are just a little bit more than lunar missions might look up the delta V for NEO vs Mars missions.

LEO to lunar surface: 5.93 km/s
LEO to a close NEO: 5.22 km/s
LEO to Martian surface: 10.22 km/s

Source: en.wikipedia.net/wiki/Delta-V_Budget

What exactly are you getting at?

That Lunar dV would be about right to land cargo. Humans need extra dV to lift them back off the surface and escape from Lunar orbit. Add 3Km/s or more for that. Also, Apollo left some mass in Lunar orbit, and much of the lander on the surface, so it didn't push the whole mass through the whole 9Km/s. Not that this is cheating, but it makes the Lunar mission *much* easier.

Under CxP, for instance, the Orion avoids descent & ascent, and only does ~5Km/s. The ascent module is the only item to perform almost the whole dV of the mission (about 8Km/s), but that has only ~4mT burnout mass, and very limited life support.

Very rough BOTE:-
To get a mission which is comparable to a NEO, delete the AM (4mT + 3mT prop + 1mT life support), and land the Orion and take it back to orbit instead (call it 40mT landed payload, including ascent prop). 1x Ares V cargo-only can land ~15mT, so to land ~40mT of super-sized Orion would need at least 3x Ares V's.

The HEFT2 document assumes that 6x 100mT launches would be required for any fully-chemical NEO mission.



The whole mass of a NEO mission has to be carried through almost the whole of the DeltaV. (See above).

Try these delta V's for Human NEO missions (short duration, including return):-
http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/neo_study/pdf/NEO_feasibility.pdf

The only three with a dV of 5.22Km/s or less (including return) are in 2065, 2069 & 2090.




The dV to visit Phobos or Diemos in Mars orbit is comparable to a NEO mission.

cheers, Martin
« Last Edit: 09/13/2010 12:48 AM by MP99 »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4401
  • Liked: 182
  • Likes Given: 359
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #58 on: 09/13/2010 02:26 AM »
perhaps she has eyes, that are hooked to a brain, and watched the spacex and nasa tests on youtube and came to the same conclusion anyone with eyes and a brain would, nasa is losin' it.

ares-1x with a dummy 2nd stage that the first stage rams into.

falcon9 with a working 2nd stage.

orion crashes.

dragon gently sets down perfectly.

maybe we need to give eyes and brains to our opinions.

where did all that nasa money go anyways?, not towards a working rocket thats for sure.

NASA is capable but atm they are ham strung.  Political reality supports shuttle derived even if shuttle derived isn't the best tool(Ares-1).  NASA choose an Orion capable of lunar flight almost asap(block I is LEO only but has many lunar requirements). This drives up the cost for ISS missions with Orion.

Like Orion, Apollo had a need for a LEO booster. NASA wisely choose the existing Saturn I. They upgraded it to Saturn IB and Apollo could do it's unmanned LEO tests without much delay.

Imagine if Orion were on an EELV and NASA put that $10 billion into an HLV, instead of Ares 1. They might not have made it but they would be much closer to the goal today.



If they choose to test on an EELV CxP probably would have avoided cancellation.
LV capability would have been known and options for upgrades would have been available.
This would have made the Orion design teams job a lot easier remember Ares I's payload went from 30T to 24T.
This forced a lot of redesign of the vehicle.

Other mistakes making LM the prime contractor throw out their OSP work.
OSP should have been finished and a lunar vehicle derived from there.

Then there's the Apollo like infrastructure which most return to the Moon plans avoid for several good reasons.

If they choose something like ELA we might even had a lunar flyby already.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html
If they choose LANTR the time frame would likely be the same as CxP but Mars would be a lot sooner.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/LANTR.html

Instead they push what was pretty much a carbon copy of FLO except with shuttle derived LVs which ended up not being shuttle derived at all.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/FLO.html

It's not that NASA's engineering was incompetent it's because the leadership was.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #59 on: 09/13/2010 01:45 PM »
Quote
... she had a specific Houston to Orlando astronaut travel in mind when she wrote that

Uhhh, ya mean; "I ain't gettin' on that dern thing till it's a good bit safer."?

Thanks for the response.  Those five things, I gotta say, are pretty tame and rather LEO-centric aat best.

And the four things?  Can you say 'food stamps'?  There's no HSF in those four things.  There's not really NASA either.

With or without the blank checks of the Apollo era?

Harsh, but to the point.  Give those guys the time of day, and give me $15B, and I'll get ya back to the Moon, with today's technology and hardware.

Quote
LEO to lunar surface: 5.93 km/s
LEO to a close NEO: 5.22 km/s

LEO to lunar surface: 4 days
LEO to NEO: 120 days

LEO to lunar surface: Two 70-100t launches.
LEO to NEO: Six (count 'em) 70-100t launches.

LEO to lunar surface: BTDT
LEO to NEO:  New, new, NEW!  WOW!  Totally new!  Mucho Newo!  Newer than new!  Gimme an 'N'!  "N!" Gimme an 'E'!  "W!"  Gimme a 'W'! "W!"  What's that spell!  "New!"  What's that spell!  "NEW!"   I can't hear you....

LEO to lunar surface food:  Tang and PBJ sandwiches.
LEO to NEO food:  Gourmet free range steak and organic potatoes, grilled to perfection with a sprig of parsley on the side.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2010 01:47 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #60 on: 09/18/2010 08:23 AM »
Kind of a late response, but here goes:

Ask yourself:   do you believe  Kraft, Kranz, Cernan, Lovell, Armstrong, Schmitt   don't really know what they are talking about ??   I feel sorry for those who would say.. right,, they dont know what they are talking about.

What do they know about how ULA/Orbital/SpaceX/any other alt space firm operates? They're astronauts from the Apollo era, not spaceflight demigods.

Quote
Let's put those guys on one team and the internet kids on the other team and see what happens.

Your constant referral to "internet kids" is getting annoying. Out of all of the alt space companies, SpaceXs' staff is the youngest (30-something), but they are hardly basement dwelling teens who still live with their parents. They are adults and just because they aren't old enough to remember the civil war, like some people, doesn't make them completely incompetent. So far they've done alright. Like it or not the yongins are the future, because no one lives forever. The old guard can act high and mighty all they want, but they'll all die one day and then it's the "internet kids" that will take over. Also, putting "internet" (code word for 'keyboard engineer') in front of "kid" fails, because practically everyone is on the internet. In case you slept through it, it went mainstream around the year 2000.
« Last Edit: 09/18/2010 08:25 AM by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10608
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2743
  • Likes Given: 1012
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #61 on: 09/18/2010 11:52 AM »
The old guard can act high and mighty all they want...

As a card-carrying member of the "old guard" I have to object to this mischaracterization. The vast majority of us not only welcome the younger generation, who we *KNOW* are there to replace us, but we gladly mentor them, turn them loose and get out of their way, just as our mentors did to us when we were 30-somethings. I personally take great pleasure in being around them and picking their brains, working with them, giving them assignments and watching them work thru their tasks. I am continually amazed at how they often approach things differently than I would have, but still make proper use of the tools and knowledge we all share in common. More often than not I have been pleased at their quick uptake on things, their eager anticipation of the work, their dedication not only to the task but also to the implications of their task to the big picture. And these young design engineers are damn good at what they do!

And before anyone says that I'm an exception I will stop you right there. I will be the first to tell you that I am not an exception. The ones that are not like me (and there are some) are the exception. The majority of us know our history, our contributions, our abilities and our place. All these "youngins" as you call them are the future of this adventure we all love so much and long after I have retired I will still be paying close attention to the brilliant accomplishments these folks will make as they also mature and eventually begin to mentor a new batch of 30-somethings of their own.

These folks keep me young, so I expect to be around a long time but I'll be damned if I'll get in their way.
« Last Edit: 09/18/2010 11:54 AM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #62 on: 09/18/2010 12:51 PM »
Quote
What do they know about how ULA/Orbital/SpaceX/any other alt space firm operates?

This remark points to the dangers of reductionism and the dangers of an inability to see the general picture because of personal emotions.  So often Armstrong and company are touted as either geniuses whose advice should be followed without question on all matters space, or as some kind if I. savants who cannot possibly know enough specialized knowledge about anything space to the extent that their opinions count for naught.

They know what they know; they all are fairly old and have perspectives that younger people do not have; they have been involved with a lot of these issues in one form or another and have experienced the last forty years with greater exposure to the inner workings of the system than many other people on the outside, regardless of age; they probably do not have the math of Mach-Effect Thrusters at their fingertips.  So?

It is incorrect to ascribe to these geezers some binary role which can only be true or false.

I imagine that there's a group of "internet kids" who get tired of being called that.  Geezers get tired of being dismissed too.  I was an "internet kid" in hi school, 1970, when you stuck the phone handpiece into the modem to make a connection with the time share service.  What some of the younger generation is forgetting is that every geezer around here was a kid, and no kid around here has yet been a geezer.

It's not about kids and geezers.  It's not about race, either, but I digress.  It is largely about power and wealth; keeping and wielding them, not necessarily in a moral fashion.  And not necessarily in a logical fashion either.

Look at those four or five things that Renclod mentions about Ms. Garver up there: 

Quote
These key national priorities that I am referring to are:

 Economic development (poverty, hunger, jobs)
 International leadership/geo-politics (world peace)
 Education (societal advancement)
 Environment (future of planet and humanity)

As an aside, look also at the key recommendation of that HEFT report.

Quote
We gotta go to a rock out in the middle of an asteroid field ASAP, before we do anything else.

Age is not a factor about discussing the pros and cons of these issues.

BTW, I don't remember the Civil War all that well.  Age, I guess.  Wasn't that the one where the two sides got on either side of the Potomac River and and exchanged polite dialogue about the future of slavery in the country?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #63 on: 09/18/2010 02:29 PM »
Renclod said:

Lori Garver has 5 strategic needs for NASA to serve, and none has anything to do with manned space exploration.

Garver said:

"The President’s budget, should it be approved by Congress, will enable NASA to align with the priorities of the Nation and to more optimally contribute to our Nation’s future.

These key national priorities that I am referring to are:

· Economic development (poverty, hunger, jobs)
· International leadership/geo-politics (world peace)
· Education (societal advancement)
· Environment (future of planet and humanity)"

***

Garver isn't saying that those are NASA's priorities.  She's saying those are national priorities.  And that NASA's mission can be relevant to the nation's priorities, not that NASA has no agency specific directives like those in its charter.

You are not interested in what people say, you are interested in twisting people's words to support your antipathy.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4010
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 432
  • Likes Given: 159
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #64 on: 09/18/2010 02:34 PM »
Kind of a late response, but here goes:

Ask yourself:   do you believe  Kraft, Kranz, Cernan, Lovell, Armstrong, Schmitt   don't really know what they are talking about ??   I feel sorry for those who would say.. right,, they dont know what they are talking about.

What do they know about how ULA/Orbital/SpaceX/any other alt space firm operates? They're astronauts from the Apollo era, not spaceflight demigods.

Quote
Let's put those guys on one team and the internet kids on the other team and see what happens.

Your constant referral to "internet kids" is getting annoying. Out of all of the alt space companies, SpaceXs' staff is the youngest (30-something), but they are hardly basement dwelling teens who still live with their parents. They are adults and just because they aren't old enough to remember the civil war, like some people, doesn't make them completely incompetent. So far they've done alright. Like it or not the yongins are the future, because no one lives forever. The old guard can act high and mighty all they want, but they'll all die one day and then it's the "internet kids" that will take over. Also, putting "internet" (code word for 'keyboard engineer') in front of "kid" fails, because practically everyone is on the internet. In case you slept through it, it went mainstream around the year 2000.

Clearly that is your opinion. Its not fact. At all.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4010
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 432
  • Likes Given: 159
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #65 on: 09/18/2010 02:36 PM »
Renclod said:

Lori Garver has 5 strategic needs for NASA to serve, and none has anything to do with manned space exploration.

Garver said:

"The President’s budget, should it be approved by Congress, will enable NASA to align with the priorities of the Nation and to more optimally contribute to our Nation’s future.

These key national priorities that I am referring to are:

· Economic development (poverty, hunger, jobs)
· International leadership/geo-politics (world peace)
· Education (societal advancement)
· Environment (future of planet and humanity)"

***

Garver isn't saying that those are NASA's priorities.  She's saying those are national priorities.  And that NASA's mission can be relevant to the nation's priorities, not that NASA has no agency specific directives like those in its charter.

You are not interested in what people say, you are interested in twisting people's words to support your antipathy.
Garver is whats known as a "dyed in the wool liberal" Meaning that she will do whatever is in the liberal agenda (both hers and Washington's) regardless of any rhyme or reason. Its that simple. Look around you for proof.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #66 on: 09/18/2010 03:16 PM »
Garver is whats known as a "dyed in the wool liberal" Meaning that she will do whatever is in the liberal agenda (both hers and Washington's) regardless of any rhyme or reason. Its that simple. Look around you for proof.

Turning people into 2 dimensional characters rarely leads to greater understanding.  American "liberalism" and "conservatism" is not that simple.

To say that she follows some secret cabal of liberalism, even when it goes against her own personal belief about whats best for NASA insults her, and your intelligence.

Both sides have reasonable, rational arguments for what they are advocating.  Both sides think they are doing what is best for NASA. 

Don't take the easy way out by trying to turn her into a fictional character.
« Last Edit: 09/18/2010 03:16 PM by SpacexULA »
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #67 on: 09/18/2010 04:13 PM »
You are not interested in what people say, you are interested in twisting people's words to support your antipathy.

Well, ya got that pretty much totally wrong.  Some months ago, Mr. Bolden made some remarks about "above all" NASA's job was as an outreach program of some sort to the Muslim community.  I like to feel, in part, that my criticisms of his remarks at that time resulted in fewer of those kinds of remarks being made.

Ms. Garver's remarks are along these lines as well.  She made a paltry effort at tying NASA's efforts to economic development, international leadership, education, and the environment.  They are squishy remarks basically geared to liberal politicians, and can mean almost anything.  That's why I don't like them.  Instead, she could have said something like:

1. NASA is at the forefront of the effort to create a new space economy, with plentiful high paying jobs, as more and more private companies work with NASA to create a lower cost way for people to access space.

2. NASA's work on the ISS, where in cooperation with several international partners, we have created a viable space laboratory can readily expand to include the world's newest space faring countries.  As we continue to cooperate on this important effort, we can demonstrate that peaceful cooperation is far more successful than warlike competition.

3. As today's idea of the service industry becomes more and more the province of minimally educated burger flippers, NASA is offering more and more high paying service jobs which require higher education.

(I didn't word that well; I'm in a hurry.)

4. As we are beginning to experience the environmentatl damages done by untrammeled growth, the ISS can serve as a valuable viewpoint to study the dangerous environmental trends and accurately identify their causes, to that our policymakers can implement corrective action.

Hm.  Not sound-bitey enough.  But I guess yer right after all:  I certainly would twist her words so that NASA could be a better organization.  Goes along with my well known antipathy.

The other side of that coin would have been Garver the conservative:

Economic development (low taxes, high profits)
International leadership (US runs ISS)
Education (lower taxes means greater educatin choice)
Environment (create an environment that is good for business, and thus good for humanity)

[Ooops.]
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #68 on: 09/18/2010 06:32 PM »
John Fornaro,

I meant my comment to be directed at renclod, and not a reply to you, I apologize for the misinterpretation.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3805
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #69 on: 09/19/2010 06:47 AM »
Ask yourself:   do you believe  Kraft, Kranz, Cernan, Lovell, Armstrong, Schmitt   don't really know what they are talking about ??   I feel sorry for those who would say.. right,, they dont know what they are talking about.

Let's put those guys on one team and the internet kids on the other team and see what happens.

Did you know about this letter when you made that comment?
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=31239

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #70 on: 09/19/2010 02:21 PM »
Very good letter.  MAkes a great deal of sense. What is the point you were trying to make?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #71 on: 09/19/2010 02:49 PM »
Ask yourself:   do you believe  Kraft, Kranz, Cernan, Lovell, Armstrong, Schmitt   don't really know what they are talking about ??   I feel sorry for those who would say.. right,, they dont know what they are talking about.

Let's put those guys on one team and the internet kids on the other team and see what happens.

Correct, they don't know anymore.  They have been out of the loop for many years. 

Kraft, Kranz, Cernan, Lovell, Armstrong, Schmitt never designed a launch vehicle or spacecraft.  Managing flight operations or flying a vehicle does not make one an expert on development of such vehicles.

And again, it is not internet kids. 
a.  ULA, Boeing, OSC, etc have the experience in spacecraft and launch vehicle development
b.  The same can not be said for NASA or


Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #72 on: 09/19/2010 03:05 PM »
...
b.  The same can not be said for NASA or

...or well, me.

Hah!
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #73 on: 09/19/2010 06:21 PM »
Very good letter.  MAkes a great deal of sense. What is the point you were trying to make?

I think his point was that people with just as impressive as credentials (but maybe not the name recognition) have came down on the other side of the issue than Armstrong, Schmitt, etc.

Also add a group of 14 Nobel Prize winners http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/science/space/01nasa.html to the pro FY2011 folks.

Both sides have their internet fan boys, engineers, and luminaries that support their side, can we just stop with the "my expert is better than yours" games? :)
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #74 on: 09/19/2010 06:30 PM »
'scuse me if this has been covered or is obvious but why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?

I can't speak for Garver, but my take is that commercial space flight is far more important than the NASA program. To be blunt, with profitable and active US commercial space flight you have a US presence in space. Without US commercial space flight, you have a space program. If we're going to burn the money anyway, might as well do it in a productive way.

My belief is that the dominant goal of any publicly funded space program should be the establishment of enterprises in space, both profitable and not dependent on public funding. I'll give two reasons here though I have several more. First, such enterprises are self-funding hence, we don't lose access to space, if some future administration or disaster should neuter the US space program for a time. Second, economic expansion has always been one of the most important tools and strengths of the US. It makes sense to use what worked best for us in the past.

Now maybe Garver has some nefarious reasons for her beliefs, but as I see it, there's a lot of positive reasons to support commercial space flight, even if there should happen to be some extra risk involved.
Karl Hallowell

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 985
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #75 on: 09/19/2010 06:40 PM »
'scuse me if this has been covered or is obvious but why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?

Maybe she has this serious disease of being financially accountable ? I hear some politicians catch it now and then.

I hear that its a common practice in the world of politics to cure that problem with a few well placed kickbacks or "contributions", or maybe future job offers .. Im sure all parties involved have hired best doctors to look into it already.


« Last Edit: 09/19/2010 06:41 PM by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #76 on: 09/20/2010 05:57 AM »
 
I didnt.   Not sure it would change what I wrote.

In that letter, Ken Bowersox, as an example, is held by me in the highest regard.  I understand that letter to say that Atlas and / or Delta could be our vehicle for HSF, and I dont disagree at all.  I just want us to fly.

There was a post here that said moon for 15 billion, Nasa said they figured  104 Billion ( and likely more if the truth be known. )   Which figure is more realistic ?
The high figure.  Could something be worked out for, oh, perhaps  80 or 90 billion ?  Maybe.  Hopefully.

I guess the true meaning of my earlier remarks would be this.....   would I want my daughter or myself to fly with Garver/Bolden  or   Kraft/Kranz     team ???  I would take Kraft et. al.   any  day.   Their age has nothing to do with physics, except that they truly do understand it and get it.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2010 06:02 AM by dks13827 »

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #77 on: 09/20/2010 06:12 AM »
 
An internet kid, in this context, is someone who does not know what they don't know and who might work for a new start up space company.  ( that is, not LM or Boeing, for example).

It also refers to folks who think Apollo was not too hard, actually.    Not to mention just orbiting a crew and then getting them back.

And to folks who think that writing Luminary software ( the code listing alone was 1 to 2 feet high of large, old, greenbar computer paper. )  I suspect that Don Eyles ( look him up ) would readily admit that writing that code was way more than  'not that hard'.

Burt Rutan's views:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704240004575085810715611660.html
« Last Edit: 09/20/2010 06:18 AM by dks13827 »

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Liked: 1190
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #78 on: 09/22/2010 05:48 AM »

An internet kid, in this context, is someone who does not know what they don't know and who might work for a new start up space company.  ( that is, not LM or Boeing, for example).

It also refers to folks who think Apollo was not too hard, actually.    Not to mention just orbiting a crew and then getting them back.

And to folks who think that writing Luminary software ( the code listing alone was 1 to 2 feet high of large, old, greenbar computer paper. )  I suspect that Don Eyles ( look him up ) would readily admit that writing that code was way more than  'not that hard'.

Burt Rutan's views:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704240004575085810715611660.html

Burt's views were misrepresented by the WSJ article; he has said so to me personally and also publicly, and this has been discussed elsewhere shortly after it occurred.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Liked: 1190
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #79 on: 09/22/2010 06:07 AM »
'scuse me if this has been covered or is obvious but why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?

I can't speak for Garver, but my take is that commercial space flight is far more important than the NASA program. To be blunt, with profitable and active US commercial space flight you have a US presence in space. Without US commercial space flight, you have a space program. If we're going to burn the money anyway, might as well do it in a productive way.

My belief is that the dominant goal of any publicly funded space program should be the establishment of enterprises in space, both profitable and not dependent on public funding. I'll give two reasons here though I have several more. First, such enterprises are self-funding hence, we don't lose access to space, if some future administration or disaster should neuter the US space program for a time. Second, economic expansion has always been one of the most important tools and strengths of the US. It makes sense to use what worked best for us in the past.

Now maybe Garver has some nefarious reasons for her beliefs, but as I see it, there's a lot of positive reasons to support commercial space flight, even if there should happen to be some extra risk involved.


Good post, thanks. 

I think that some other folks should take the time to read what Lori says rather than what they think she says.  One place to start might be:

www.nasa.gov/pdf/428838main_Garver_Suborbital_Conference_0218.pdf

Bottom line, I know of no one more personally committed to the idea of human spaceflight than Lori.  I doubt that any of the naysayers out there have undergone surgery just to get the opportunity to fly in space:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/garver_sacrifice_020325.html

(She subsequently had the surgery; the article dates from prior to....)

I've worked with Lori off and on for decades and know her very well. Even though we may disagree on politics, the vileness expressed towards her motives by some frankly disgust me.  We may argue means and methods, but kindly put a lid on discussions of evil personal motivations.  Time for some civility.

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #80 on: 09/22/2010 08:00 AM »
The old guard can act high and mighty all they want...

As a card-carrying member of the "old guard" I have to object to this mischaracterization. The vast majority of us not only welcome the younger generation, who we *KNOW* are there to replace us, but we gladly mentor them, turn them loose and get out of their way, just as our mentors did to us when we were 30-somethings.

Sorry Chuck. I should have said "some of the old guard". You're one of the politest and down to Earth people I've met. I meant no offense.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #81 on: 09/22/2010 08:43 AM »
Clearly that is your opinion.

Who's opinion would it be if not mine?

Quote
Its not fact. At all.

Look at what dks13827 wrote:

Quote
Let's put those guys on one team and the internet kids on the other team and see what happens.

It's a thought experiment, not a statement of fact. Neither is my response a statement of fact. I'm disputing the likely outcome.

Here's my reasonoing in greater detail:

If this little contest took place between the Apollo astronauts and everyone involved in new space (or as dks13827 puts it "internet kids"), then what's likely to happen is the "internet kids" winning, simply because they might actually live long enough to see something take off the pad (not to mention that they've already started launching vehicles, but that's beside the point). dks13827 postulates that only the team with seasoned veterans in the field has a chance to win, but if that's so then the Apollo team will lose their chances when their veterans pass away and it would be a draw, since apparently "internet kids", which is what would likely remain in the Apollo team, don't appreciate how hard spaceflight is. dks13827's presupposition is wrong for two reasons:
1-During Apollo the people dks13827 brought up were at about the same age as the "internet kids" and they had little experience flying in space and virtually none flying to the Moon. Yet they succeeded.
2-The "internet kids" are actually adult engineers and while not as seasoned, they've shown that they can learn the craft and perform competently. Again everyone's favorite example - SpaceX. A company that's been around for 8 years and is doing alright both financially and technically so far. Whether or not they'll bring about the next big advancement for HSF is debatable (personally I'm not as optimistic as some of my peers), but their performance so far is commendable and "internet kids" is hardly a fitting description for them or anyone running a company that deals with spaceflight. I hope that was a bit more clear.
« Last Edit: 09/22/2010 08:46 AM by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #82 on: 09/22/2010 02:16 PM »
Quote
An internet kid, in this context, is someone who does not know what they don't know ...

I would even get a bit more harsh:  ... and who won't admit, in principle, that even if there could possibly be something that the kid wouldn't know, that knowledge would be worthless on an a priori basis.  An internets kid would, in this context, not admit that a kid who was on the internets was anything but an internets kid, even tho the term only applies perjoratively to a certain subset of those kids.

Now about Andy Pasztor's article about Burt Rutan.  I'm going to suggest that Pasztor is a journalism cadet, and that we should not turn our college journalism programs over to journalist cadets.  He has created controversy about several space related issues.  I would suggest that he's more interested in being read than in helping the nation find the best way forward with HSF.  Per:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Pasztor

Pasztor "cherry picked" Rutan's statements, and the resulting article was a mis-quotation. Pasztor also wrote a different WSU article about SpaceX, which prompted Elon Musk to point out that the article was "rife with errors".

Here's Pasztor's article, and selected pieces thereof:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704240004575085810715611660.html

Quote
Commercial space pioneer Burt Rutan has sharply criticized Obama administration proposals to outsource key portions of NASA's manned space program to private firms.

The White House wants NASA to use outside firms to develop and operate new rockets and spacecraft ... that had previously been considered a core function of [NASA]. Mr. Rutan ... says he is "fearful that the commercial guys will fail" to deliver on the promises ...

"That would be a very big mistake for America to make," according to the letter ... [Mischaracterization!!!]

Such comments are unexpected from a maverick engineer long identified with pushing the boundaries of commercial space projects...

"From my past comments on NASA's" lack of direction and success, "an observer might think that I would applaud the decision to turn this important responsibility over to commercial developers," the letter says. However, he adds, that's "wrong." [This is very misleading. Read Rutan's actual remarks below.]

Mr. Rutan has prided himself on avoiding being tied to federal funds...

While reiterating his support ... Mr. Rutan compared depending too heavily on them at this point to giving up "an airport where I know I can get in on the approach, for one where I might" be able to land. [Also a misquote:  That was Griffin!]

Rutan responded to that WSU article here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/burt-rutan-sets-the-record-str.html

Quote
To my friends in the Press...

Since the WSJ chose to cherry-pick and miss-quote my comments to Cong[ressman] Wolf and since the blogs have taken that to further mischaracterized my comments, I am forwarding the Wolf memo in its entirety, in the hopes that some of this gets corrected.  Some additional clarification of my thoughts follow:

My basic concern is that the real value of NASA's contributions that America realized in the 60s and early 70s is now being completely discarded. ... Yada yada.

In short, it is a good idea indeed for the commercial community to compete to re-supply the ISS and to bring about space access for the public to enjoy. I applaud the efforts of SpaceX, Virgin and Orbital ...  However, I do not see the commercial companies taking Americans to Mars ... and I doubt if they will take the true Research risks ... to fly new concepts that have low confidence of return on investment.  Even NASA ... has not recently shown a willingness to fly true Research concepts.

For years I have stated that a NASA return-to-moon effort must include true Research content...  The current Ares/Orion does not do that.  While I have been critical of Constellation for that reason, I do not think that NASA should 'give up' on manned spaceflight, just that they should be doing it while meeting the ... criteria above.

Some have guessed that my recent comments are based on my overall displeasure with the Obama Administration.  They are not; however it does seem that the best technical minds in U.S. industry are still striving to find HOW America can continue to be "exceptional", while the Administration does not want America to BE "exceptional".  [I noticed this too.  Anybody agree with me?]

Burt Rutan

This is text of the Burt Rutan memo to Congressman Wolf:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/that-burt-rutan-memo-to-congre.html

Quote
Burt Rutan has given Hyperbola permission to print in full the original memo...

I occasionally banter with my friend, Mike Griffin on ... NASA policy.  After sending him my latest tirade, he shared with me his recent letter ...  I promised him that I would send you [Wolf] my thoughts ...:

From my past comments on NASA's post-mid-70s manned space efficiencies/accomplishments, an observer might think that I would applaud a decision to turn this important responsibility over to commercial developers.  However, he would be wrong.  [This is the cherry picked paragraph which was twisted bay Pasztor.]

No question, it would be good to see commercial companies quickly succeed at orbital access ...  However, I am fearful that the commercial guys will fail; i.e. they will do little more in my remaining lifetime than NASA accomplished in 3.5 years with Gemini in the mid 1960s.  [He is fearful that they cannot take the place of NASA.]  That would be a very big mistake for America to make, as we move into an era of real competition in space exploration as well as risk the loss of our leadership in nearly every other technical discipline.

Mike Griffin's excellent statement says it best; "I too want, in the strongest possible terms, to have government policies which serve to stimulate private development of space. But at the same time, I too am reluctant -- with an analogy to instrument flying -- to give up an airport where I know I can get in on the approach, for one where I might".

What I would like to see is a decade or two of overlap - an initial push in the commercial arena of manned spaceflight (Development programs, not Research programs), while NASA flies risky new ideas (read, true Research programs, giving at least a chance of discovering an important new Breakthrough), and at the same time pushes the forefront of Exploration beyond the earth's moon.

Imagine how much better America could motivate our youth ...

Two years after Neil and Buzz landed on the moon, America led the world in ... yada yada yada.

The attachment ...

As always, I am ok with the distribution of my thoughts without limitation. [Moderator Note: Why I went and posted the whole thing.]

While I usually offer candid remarks at the drop of the hat, I am not interested in Congressional testimony...  [Heh-heh-heh.  I like this guy.  Somebody have him call me.]

Burt Rutan

The truth of the matter is that Rutan calls for "a decade or two of overlap" between NASA and commercial space and that is exactly how we should proceed.

"Fear is the mind killer. ... I will face my fear."  "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself."  And Rutan is justifiably fearful that the commercial companies will fail.  He faces those fears with his own capital and his own achievements.  BTW, he paints a better picture of Griffin's personality than you might hear around here.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #83 on: 09/22/2010 03:32 PM »
And now Lori Garver's speech there in Colorado:

"President Obama has provided a $6-billion increase for NASA"

No, he has not "provided" anything.  He has "proposed" an increase.  Which I think is a good thing, in and of itself, but Garver should tell the whole truth the whole way.  Ix-nay on the ushy-may atements-stay.

The "Winter Olympics" and "thin ice" analogies fail miserably, I'd say.  Was this a prepared speech, or were these off-the-hem remarks?  That would excuse a bit of sloppiness.

But what does she propose we do with the $6B?

"We're going to fund increases in our sciences and climate change research. We're going to fund more space science research and aeronautics research, especially in green aeronautics, things like helping create biofuels for aviation fuel."  Okaaaaayyyy.

"...we are going to also foster innovation in space research to help us inspire the next
generation..."  I'm gonna be me here.  That "innovation" is what, Twitter and FaceBook?  I don't like mushy statements.

"So part of that change in our thinking means that we need to think about new ways and what the role of government and industry should be to explore space." Moon is old.  DADT, because we've BTDT.  Don't talk about the Moon.  Talk about HEFT. HEFT is new. New! NEW!  See what I mean?

"So we want to open a space frontier..."  On a rock where you can only fit 2 guyz and 2 girlz.  Not on the Moon.  DADT, remember?  And she don't even mention Mars in the speech.

"Space needs to become something the people can personally participate in, rather than just marvel from afar..."  Just to take a page from Palin's extensive geography playbook; I can see Mars from my back yard.  I can't see anything else, tho.  Like that rock.  What might I be "personally" participating in between now and 2025?  Mushy, mushy, mushy.

Finally, a piece of meat: "Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research Program"  $2.5M "A sustainable, step-by-step path..."  I'd expect it would be, at that price.  But wait, there's more... $15B proposed, as it turns out! Woo-hoo!  Now this is promising...  Not!  $15M, actually.  Ok, I don't mind a joke at my expense.

This next snippet is complicated.  Garver hesitates about going on the Russian rocket because of risk and because she's got kids.  That's fine by me, and kudos to her for telling the truth on this.  But then she goes on to mush about the concept: "And, honestly,
doing it in another culture..."  Give me a break.  We're reaching out to the Tsarist community now?

Next is something that I fully support, the idea to encourage students "to enter the STEM field".  I do have a great deal of cynicism about the honesty of our politicians in this regard, however.  My disregard of their honesty is based on their actions, and my perception of what their future actions might be.  When I read statements like: "We can do anything" and "We want to be a part of that", I see only echoes of a related statement, by her boss: "Change we can believe in".  All mush, I tell ya.

I consider the increasing gap that we have between rich and poor in our own country, part of which is indeed made worse by our education system. I consider how education suffers under both Republican and Democrat administrations.  I consider that it is in the chambers of Congress that many of our presidential candidates are selected.  Perhaps there's a reason I shouldn't be cynical?

Then she goes on about risk for a bit, and signs off with some inspirational stuff.

Sooo.....

...read what Lori says rather than what they think she says...

So I did, and that's some of what I think about that speech.  I can easily believe that she's better than this.  Nor do I confuse the selection of the post with the poster's intentions.  Also, I gotta say, the gall bladder surgery article has to be classified as "old news", and not very pertinent.

Who's opinion would it be if not mine?

Please.  No trick question, Ok?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Liked: 1190
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #84 on: 09/22/2010 04:45 PM »
If this is mush, then mush I will take:

"So we want to open a space frontier -- we have been
talking about that for along time -- to enhance access to space
and to give more people the opportunity to be part of the
incredible journey. We want to allow more companies, more
markets, and jobs to be developed, and that is what we do best in
the country. So NASA can be a big part of this vision.

This shouldn't be news to anybody. At Charlie's and my
confirmation hearing in the Senate this July, Charlie said, "I
dream of a day when Americans" -- any American -- "can launch
into space and see the magnificence and grandeur of our home
planet...as I have been blessed to do." "


And:

"So this is all in support of the broader goals to
strengthen the American aerospace sector and to extend human
flight into the solar system. This undertaking is something that
no single company or group of companies or even a sector of the
economy or one government can do. We need resources and the will
that all of us can muster plus the competitive pressure of the
free markets to consistently improve and then add the innovation
of the American entrepreneur."


And when she was talking about that 'other culture,' she in fact was saying:

"And, honestly, doing it in another culture and in a way that was really
involving the commercial space industry which was the goal of the
potential flight was something that I felt very strongly about."


Slightly different spin.  Lots of us have said it is rather ironic that the former Soviet Union bred firms that were more accepting of free enterprise than our own U.S. aerospace industry. 

Don't be too surprised that political appointees have to be political on occasion, too.
« Last Edit: 09/22/2010 04:47 PM by HMXHMX »

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #85 on: 09/22/2010 05:14 PM »
'scuse me if this has been covered or is obvious but why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?

I can't speak for Garver, but my take is that commercial space flight is far more important than the NASA program. To be blunt, with profitable and active US commercial space flight you have a US presence in space. Without US commercial space flight, you have a space program. If we're going to burn the money anyway, might as well do it in a productive way.

My belief is that the dominant goal of any publicly funded space program should be the establishment of enterprises in space, both profitable and not dependent on public funding. I'll give two reasons here though I have several more. First, such enterprises are self-funding hence, we don't lose access to space, if some future administration or disaster should neuter the US space program for a time. Second, economic expansion has always been one of the most important tools and strengths of the US. It makes sense to use what worked best for us in the past.

Now maybe Garver has some nefarious reasons for her beliefs, but as I see it, there's a lot of positive reasons to support commercial space flight, even if there should happen to be some extra risk involved.


Good post, thanks. 

I think that some other folks should take the time to read what Lori says rather than what they think she says.  One place to start might be:

www.nasa.gov/pdf/428838main_Garver_Suborbital_Conference_0218.pdf

Bottom line, I know of no one more personally committed to the idea of human spaceflight than Lori.  I doubt that any of the naysayers out there have undergone surgery just to get the opportunity to fly in space:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/garver_sacrifice_020325.html

(She subsequently had the surgery; the article dates from prior to....)

I've worked with Lori off and on for decades and know her very well. Even though we may disagree on politics, the vileness expressed towards her motives by some frankly disgust me.  We may argue means and methods, but kindly put a lid on discussions of evil personal motivations.  Time for some civility.
Ms Garver may indeed be very nice.  IMO she is way too naive about 'flight test', and this is indeed the subject.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Liked: 1190
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #86 on: 09/22/2010 05:20 PM »
'scuse me if this has been covered or is obvious but why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?

I can't speak for Garver, but my take is that commercial space flight is far more important than the NASA program. To be blunt, with profitable and active US commercial space flight you have a US presence in space. Without US commercial space flight, you have a space program. If we're going to burn the money anyway, might as well do it in a productive way.

My belief is that the dominant goal of any publicly funded space program should be the establishment of enterprises in space, both profitable and not dependent on public funding. I'll give two reasons here though I have several more. First, such enterprises are self-funding hence, we don't lose access to space, if some future administration or disaster should neuter the US space program for a time. Second, economic expansion has always been one of the most important tools and strengths of the US. It makes sense to use what worked best for us in the past.

Now maybe Garver has some nefarious reasons for her beliefs, but as I see it, there's a lot of positive reasons to support commercial space flight, even if there should happen to be some extra risk involved.


Good post, thanks. 

I think that some other folks should take the time to read what Lori says rather than what they think she says.  One place to start might be:

www.nasa.gov/pdf/428838main_Garver_Suborbital_Conference_0218.pdf

Bottom line, I know of no one more personally committed to the idea of human spaceflight than Lori.  I doubt that any of the naysayers out there have undergone surgery just to get the opportunity to fly in space:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/garver_sacrifice_020325.html

(She subsequently had the surgery; the article dates from prior to....)

I've worked with Lori off and on for decades and know her very well. Even though we may disagree on politics, the vileness expressed towards her motives by some frankly disgust me.  We may argue means and methods, but kindly put a lid on discussions of evil personal motivations.  Time for some civility.
Ms Garver may indeed be very nice.  IMO she is way too naive about 'flight test', and this is indeed the subject.

I thought the subject was "why is she so pro commercial space?" and that was what I was posting regarding.

But I think Lori understands flight test as well as she needs to to do her job.  And there are plenty of others at NASA who understand flight test, since it is their job to do so.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #87 on: 09/22/2010 06:21 PM »
Let's put those guys on one team and the internet kids on the other team and see what happens.

"Those guys" = Ares 1

"Internet kids" = Falcon 9

I saw what happened. ;D

“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 TexasRED

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Houston
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #88 on: 09/22/2010 06:33 PM »
This kids thing is getting silly.

Young engineers are on all programs and virtually all companies. To try to insult one is to also insult the other. The inverse is true as well, its not just newspace companies that have younger engineers working late because they love their job etc etc. (like Aviation Week made it sound).

You need a good mix.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3752
  • Earth
  • Liked: 152
  • Likes Given: 3153
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #89 on: 08/26/2012 05:38 AM »


Garver's chat.
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Tags: