Author Topic: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?  (Read 25249 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • 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: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • 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: 9168
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 329
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 planetís 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 Ė 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 Presidentís 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 Nationís 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: 7543
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1753
  • Likes Given: 393
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 Ė Mike Griffin
« Last Edit: 09/12/2010 09:37 PM by dks13827 »

Offline Rabidpanda

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
  • Liked: 108
  • 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: 1922
  • Liked: 74
  • 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: 1922
  • Liked: 74
  • 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: 9168
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 329
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.

Tags: