tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post1013793797625859358..comments2023-11-03T01:31:15.528-07:00Comments on Astronaut Leroy Chiao's Blog: Augustine Human Space Flight Review CommissionLeroy Chiaohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00826755971524702129noreply@blogger.comBlogger167125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-60599261209500757192009-06-24T11:18:26.547-07:002009-06-24T11:18:26.547-07:00It is becoming clear that Ares I/V is facing worse...It is becoming clear that Ares I/V is facing worsening budgetary constraints, rising development costs, technical shortcomings and mission shrink. Let it go.<br /><br />Post-Shuttle LEO Capability can be achieved by fully funding COTS-D. Orbital Sciences, SpaceDev and SpaceX orbital craft offer complementary and evolutionary LEO access, with the eventual reduced cost of re-usability features.<br /><br />Jupiter Direct is a team of NASA and contractor engineers and analysts devoting personal time to a better HLV. <br /><br />With COTS-D assuring reasonably quick LEO transport, Jupiter Direct development can proceed on a realistically budget-paced schedule, and be geared for activities beyond LEO and possibly second generation orbital station components.Ben Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694021591689886812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-18298805825086460282009-06-24T09:09:23.604-07:002009-06-24T09:09:23.604-07:00Please consider the following sections to your Jul...Please consider the following sections to your July 28 Committee Public Meeting agenda:<br /><br />I. Budget review of the NASA’s human spaceflight systems (Past and the Status from 2010-2015): <br /><br />1) Apollo program budget and the lessons learned. <br />2) STS program budget and the lessons learned. <br />3) ISS program budget and the lessons learned.<br /><br />II. Budget review of the HSF R & D programs (2010-2020): <br />1) Orion 4-crew budget. <br />2) Orion 6-crew budget. <br />3) ARES I for ISS 4- crew budget. <br />4) ARES I for ISS and Return to the Moon 6- crew budget. <br />5) ARES V for Return to the Moon 6- crew, lunar lander, and EDS budget. <br />6) ARES V for Return to the Moon cargo, lunar lander, and EDS budget. <br />7) DIRECT for ISS budget. <br />8) DIRECT for Return to the Moon budget (crew transportation). <br />9) DIRECT for Return to the Moon budget (cargo transportation). <br />10) Delta V etc. budget. <br />11) Others. <br /><br />III. Budget review of the Lunar Base Stay Planning (2020-2030): <br />1) NASA’s lunar base budget. <br />2) NASA’s transportation vehicle for the base elements, lunar lander, and EDS budget. <br />3) Partner’s lunar base budget (ESA, Russian, Japan, etc.). <br />4) Partner’s transportation vehicle for the base elements, lunar lander, and EDS budget (ESA, Russian, Japan, etc.). <br />5) Commercial company lunar base budget.HSCHENSPACEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09950813206034891566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-67890400618679157252009-06-23T07:34:07.126-07:002009-06-23T07:34:07.126-07:00Leroy,
In answer to your question, "Who are ...Leroy,<br /><br />In answer to your question, "Who are you guys?", I am one. I am retired and can speak my mind, but many of the others are currently working inside Exploration and can not. It is one thing for John Shannon to speak about an alternative and quite something else for a GS-12/13 engineer to speak out.<br /><br />Take a long hard look at Trust Oscillation on Ares I. It is apparently not going very well. The shuttle data taken recently have brought the mass dampers into doubt and the springs at the interstage may cause problems in the bending mode. And yes, CxP will try and hide facts from you. They asked me to join this process during ESAS in the summer of '05 and I refused. Needless to say, my career went nowhere after that.Danny Degerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18248710173945544994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-30688867358539412812009-06-21T21:33:56.672-07:002009-06-21T21:33:56.672-07:00Once you go to a propellant depot architecture, yo...Once you go to a propellant depot architecture, you could launch all of the actual dry hardware from the ESAS architecture on two existing or near-term EELV Heavies, and then the rest of your launches you really don’t care about launcher reliability. Basically with a propellant depot architecture, you can keep the number of mission-critical rendezvous and docking opportunities to the same number as ESAS, while greatly increasing performance, reducing cost, and stimulating the private launch industry.<br /><br />Like Space Tugs, propellant depots are an idea whose time has come.<br /><br />http://selenianboondocks.com/2008/11/ula-propellant-depot-paper/whathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09369655961406015035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-33640119500799728042009-06-20T10:41:52.434-07:002009-06-20T10:41:52.434-07:00Dear Committee Members:
The international coopera...Dear Committee Members:<br /><br />The international cooperation is one of the key elements for the NASA’s 2020 Return to the Moon. The following cooperation phases are for you consideration.<br /><br />Phase I of the NASA’s international cooperation on the lunar base or lunar village. <br />Partnership: 1) NASA, 2) ESA, 3) Russian, 4) Japan, 5) Canada.<br />Cooperation program funding starting date: 2015.<br />Reason: Partner’s budget and program readiness in 2015.<br />Partner’s module at the lunar base date: 2020-2025.<br /><br />Phase II of the NASA’s international cooperation on the lunar base or lunar village. <br />Partnership: 1) China*, 2) India, 3) Korea, 4) Others.<br />Cooperation program funding starting date: 2020.<br />Reason: Partner’s budget and program readiness in 2020.<br />Partner’s module at the lunar base date: 2025-2030. <br />*The White House policy change is required.<br /><br />The cooperation in human space exploration between the nations has been developed based on mutual benefits of collaboration. Lunar and Mars exploration and settlement human space exploration ventures of this century may prove too expensive for any one nation to handle. International teaming can be required to meet these mission requirements. It is very important to promote international cooperation activities which can enhance the security and welfare of mankind.<br /><br />Thank you very much for your great review.HSCHENSPACEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09950813206034891566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-5527186286474667792009-06-19T22:07:18.160-07:002009-06-19T22:07:18.160-07:00Dear Dr. Chiao:
With regard to your question to t...Dear Dr. Chiao:<br /><br />With regard to your question to the Direct 3.0 group, "Who are you guys", there are 9 folks out front publicly, including Steve, Ross and Chuck, and another 60+ engineers and PhD folk from NASA and the aerospace industry who have devoted their evenings and weekends for the past three years to bring the SDLV concept to its present state.<br /><br />While they did not invent the concept (NLS explored the concept all the way through a PDR review), the Direct 3.0 group has revised and refined the concept, fulfilling the 2005 congressional mandate to use the STS hardware to create a sustainable American HSF program.<br /><br />I have been particularly impressed by the robust mission profiles developed and published by Direct 3.0. Their concept encourages the US EELV industry, private American enterprise like SpaceX as well as international partners to participate. NASA is not the sole player.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br />Dave Fischer, PhDDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13748895633134916275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-86188757631565584832009-06-19T12:21:29.714-07:002009-06-19T12:21:29.714-07:00--
--
now and in the next weeks, you'll find d...--<br />--<br />now and in the next weeks, you'll find dozens good and rational suggestions for the Human Space Flight Plans Committee in my new ghostNASA article: http://ow.ly/f3vQ<br />--<br />--Gaetano Maranohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00500435490402119385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-38566195305294881952009-06-19T07:53:25.601-07:002009-06-19T07:53:25.601-07:00Thank you, Leroy.
I see now that the real benef...Thank you, Leroy. <br /><br />I see now that the real benefit of the commission is its ability to recommend to President Obama the start of a new vision for space exploration. And I mean the real vision, not the papers.<br /><br />International cooperation. Free market encouragement.<br /><br />Biological testing so we know how to live in space. Robotic exploration so we know where to go. Advanced R&D so we have the best technology when we go.<br /><br />And the most salient point: New lofty goals that only NASA can achieve. A new free-world space race has crept up on us, and NASA must play to its strengths to keep at the head of the pack.<br /><br />NASA has done things that no other organization could do. But times have changed, and other organizations are much more capable now than in the past. So NASA must re-focus on what they do best: *what no one else can do!*<br /><br />Thank you Leroy and friends!!!<br /><br /><br />PS: It is a sin if video and minutes of the public hearing was not kept. (nothing here http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/meetings/06_17_meeting.html ) The HD coverage of STS-125 was amazing at /nasatelevision/ on youtube. I'm still expecting the same thing from /hsf/.whathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09369655961406015035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-71580201463710996632009-06-18T23:48:14.523-07:002009-06-18T23:48:14.523-07:00THANK YOU for your comments. I have read every on...THANK YOU for your comments. I have read every one. Your inputs are valued.<br /><br />Leroy ChiaoUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933671044287869243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-315599068412417592009-06-17T15:55:05.312-07:002009-06-17T15:55:05.312-07:00Was checking up on all the launch systems out ther...Was checking up on all the launch systems out there and recalled my favorite canceled system - Venture Star.<br />Reading this really makes me furious.<br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/x-33venturestar-what-really-happened/Ginny K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17483944679348406116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-32429475295758837322009-06-17T14:18:23.671-07:002009-06-17T14:18:23.671-07:00I was watching the Commission on NASA TV today and...I was watching the Commission on NASA TV today and noted you were asking about who the people behind Jupiter were. I hope that isn't going to affect your decision about it. It looks to be an outstanding system and I'd be willing to bet that you could talk to the right people either privately or that they'd come forward if they knew their idea was being seriously considered. It really does seem to be the most effective system on many levels.Ginny K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17483944679348406116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-54077910383192407602009-06-16T19:51:24.113-07:002009-06-16T19:51:24.113-07:00Ian Crawford: "(2) I would like to stress the...Ian Crawford: "(2) I would like to stress the scientific importance of human lunar exploration, as set out in the recent US NRC document on the Scientific Context for the Exploration of the Moon:<br /><br />http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11954"<br /><br />I've set up a site that has a number of what I consider to be important background documents, including the one mentioned above, at<br /><br />www.restorethevision.blogspot.com/<br /><br />I hope this proves to be useful. I also include some comments that may contradict NASA's current plans, but I imagine you'll get plenty of input on keeping things the way they are during public meetings in DC, Huntsville, and Cape Canaveral.<br /><br />TrueBlueWitt: "Dr Chaio, I just saw an article on the Web that claimed that D-IV Heavy could lift Orion..."<br /><br />Clark Lindsey points to some interesting speculations on this study here:<br /><br />www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=13118<br /><br />and<br /><br />www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=13131 <br /><br />Personally the details about particular trade-offs (eg: Delta IV vs. Ares 1) aren't of concern to me. I could take or leave any particular piece of Constellation or commercial hardware. I just want to see the committee make recommendations that NASA follows that will actually shrink the ISS gap, encourage commercial spaceflight (i.e. NASA using private spaceflight services with customers beyond NASA ... not cost-plus contracts) considerably more than NASA now does, fits the budget, and does meaningful space exploration and development.Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508338717987649684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-33556556237811684362009-06-16T07:02:58.730-07:002009-06-16T07:02:58.730-07:00Dr Chaio, I just saw an article on the Web that c...Dr Chaio, I just saw an article on the Web that claimed that D-IV Heavy could lift Orion(http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Study061509.xml&headline=Study%20Finds%20Human-rated%20Delta%20IV%20Cheaper&channel=space), but it would need a new heavier US(4 x RL10 or 1 J-2X) to do so.. <br /><br />That does not correspond well with the info I've seen.. Most of the data out there suggests the current D-IV US is sufficient once the cores switch from RS-68 to RS-68A.<br /><br />If this report from Aerospace Corp crosses in front of the committee please ask a couple questions:<br /><br />1) Which RS-68s where assumed to be on the core stage.<br /><br />2) Is current US with RS-68A sufficient for ISS Orion? <br /><br />3) Is the new US really only needed for the heavier "lunar" Orion?<br /><br />4) Besides J-2X what excactly could be "carried" from Ares-I to Ares-V.. (certainly NOT the solids)<br /><br />Thanks!TrueBlueWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01528841728234873845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-73866297107236671472009-06-13T20:25:54.038-07:002009-06-13T20:25:54.038-07:00Dear Dr Chiao,
Thank you for the opportunity to c...Dear Dr Chiao,<br /><br />Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Augustine Commission's important work. I would like to make three main points:<br /><br />(1) I believe human space exploration should be an international endeavour. In this context I would like to draw the Committee's attention to the Global Exploration Strategy document, signed by 14 space agencies (including NASA) in 2007. This document is available at:<br /><br />http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/GES_Framework_final.pdf<br /><br />It provides an outstanding framework for international space cooperation in the twenty-first century, and I would urge the Committee to do all that it can to develop NASA's future contributions to space exploration within the context of this global strategy.<br /><br />(2) I would like to stress the scientific importance of human lunar exploration, as set out in the recent US NRC document on the Scientific Context for the Exploration of the Moon:<br /><br />http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11954<br /><br />The Moon still has much to tell us about the early history of the solar system and the evolution of terrestrial planets, and much of this rich geological record will only be accessible given a renewed human presence on the lunar surface (it is simply not the case that most of this work can be done robotically). A more detailed development of the scientific case for human lunar exploration, based on contributions to an ESA study in 2003, can be found at<br /><br />http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~iac/Space_Policy_Moon_paper.pdf <br /><br />(3) While Mars is also an important scientific target that will ultimately benefit from a<br />human presence, the Moon is an obvious place to develop much of the technology and operational experience which will ultimately be required for human Mars missions.<br /><br />I would therefore recommend consideration of a two-pronged exploration strategy, whereby a robotic exploration of Mars is pursued in parallel with a development of an (international) human spaceflight infrastructure on the Moon. There may then be a realistic chance that, sometime before mid-century, the latter will have developed the human spaceflight expertise, and the former the detailed knowledge of<br />the Martian environment, to make human missions to Mars both scientifically worthwhile and technically feasible. A short paper which develops these ideas in the context of ESA's Aurora programme is available at<br /><br />http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~iac/AG_Moon_Mars.pdf<br /><br />Good luck with your deliberations,<br /><br />Ian Crawford<br />Birkbeck College, UK<br />http://www.bbk.ac.uk/es/staff/Ian_CrawfordAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-80326096364090205432009-06-13T20:13:42.473-07:002009-06-13T20:13:42.473-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-43286766382976938322009-06-13T16:04:18.595-07:002009-06-13T16:04:18.595-07:00Dr. Chiao. Congratulations on being selected to th...Dr. Chiao. Congratulations on being selected to the Augustine Commission. I'm very happy to see an independant review of the current HSF direction. I am not a huge fan of going back to the moon(unless it's more than flags & footprints). My passion is to see Man land on Mars in my lifetime(even NEO would be good start). I'm a 43yr Old Noise & Vibes Engineer working for GM(for how long.. who knows).. I've always had a great passion for Space. I was just old enough to see Apollo Moon landings. I don't want to see Constellation go the way of Apollo.. Which is what I fear will happen given the schedule/mission risk of Ares-I and the exhorbitant development and flight costs projected for the ever burgeoning and inflexible(limited cargo volume) Ares-V. <br /><br />Please seriously look at more affordable alternatives. <br /><br />After over a year following DIRECT's development on the forums at nasaspaceflight.com I'm convinced DIRECT 3.0(SSME based core with RL10/RL60/J-2X powered US for beyond LEO missions) is extremely mission flexible and probably the most sustainable alternative. <br /><br />BTW..it seems crazy that the "comments" field at (http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/contact_us/contact-form.html) do not accept special characters.. if "/" or "(" or "-" are considered special? Hard enough to put down everything in 500 words. <br /><br />Thanks for making this Blog available and taking time to read our opinions.TrueBlueWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01528841728234873845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-7415988789532457112009-06-12T09:06:03.334-07:002009-06-12T09:06:03.334-07:00An addendum to my previous post. SpaceX now only ...An addendum to my previous post. SpaceX now only briefly mentions reusability on on this page of their website: <a href="http://www.spaceX.com/company.php" rel="nofollow">Company</a><br /><br />But the CEO of the company, Elon Musk, goes into his Falcon 9 reusability plans in detail on this web page: <a href="http://www.satellitetoday.com/commercial/launchers/Elon-Musk-CEO-CTO-and-Founder-SpaceX_29401_p2.html" rel="nofollow"> <br />Elon Musk, CEO, CTO and Founder, SpaceX</a> and also spoke extensively about it on at the ISDC 2009 conference on June 3:<br /><a href="http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/06/03/elon-musks-isdc-2009-keynote/" rel="nofollow">Elon Musk’s ISDC 2009 Keynote</a>Rick Boozerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08417024297269996730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-85745050055361862452009-06-12T04:33:47.164-07:002009-06-12T04:33:47.164-07:00"With Constellation, and some parts of Direct...<i>"With Constellation, and some parts of Direct, we are building throwaway rockets. Haven't we progressed enough to design reusable Spacecraft and Launch Vehicles?"</i><br /><br />One flaw in bwhitman's argument involves reusability. Though the SpaceX Falcon IX will not be reusable in its earlier flights, SpaceX plans to gradually develop the ability to recover the first stage of Falcon IX and then develop the ability to recover the second stage. Go to the SpaceX website for details.<br /><br />I'm not an employee of SpaceX, Boeing, Lock-Mart, or ULA. Nor do I have any connection to any of these companies (I'm a retired software engineer who is currently finishing my Master of Astronomy degree in astrophysics). There have been analyses done by Boeing and others that show several different existing boosters can do the job more economically with in-orbit assembly of a translunar vehicle, even without reusability.Rick Boozerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08417024297269996730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-68563536575012760392009-06-11T21:12:56.147-07:002009-06-11T21:12:56.147-07:00The US has spent the last 30 years building infras...The US has spent the last 30 years building infrastructure to provide reasonably reliable human access to LEO. Current plans are to demolish all of that, with no US human access to space for 6 or more years. <br /><br />Direct (Jupiter) would provide plenty of payload capacity for Orion, versatility, uses 95% of the existing infrastructure (as the directive was written), and allows us to continue launching Shuttles until the capsule and second stage are ready. Jupiter would give us payload capacity for the lunar lander. <br /><br />With Constellation, and some parts of Direct, we are building throwaway rockets. Haven't we progressed enough to design reusable Spacecraft and Launch Vehicles? The Shuttle is greatly reusable--yes it reqires an army for maintenance, but it requires an army to manufacture throwaway rockets and spacecraft--just a different place and another state's economy. Pay me here or pay me there, the money will be spent. There are many pathways leading to the moon, with Direct and Constellation among them. Direct provides logical continuance, not the usual start/stop, build it all over again, mentality.bwhitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13020666660453102314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-91459635155499247042009-06-11T10:46:18.985-07:002009-06-11T10:46:18.985-07:00Leroy, I am championing the Space Shuttle because ...Leroy, I am championing the Space Shuttle because it hasn't even begun to demonstrate the many ways it can be utilized in space. The Augustine Commission could determine the fate of the Space Shuttle. I would like to have your support. Please visit: www.cyrus-space-system.com and get a feel of what I am trying to accomplish. Ultimately, the Space Shuttle will become a working prototype for a much larger, much more elegant spacecraft that will carry us to Mars. I am getting the entire proposal out to as many members of the Augustine Commission as I am able, but also to General Holden, Dr. John Holdren and perhaps even to President Obama. All I am presenting is just one way that the Space Shuttle could be used, but on the immediate horizon, we must first save her from a premature demise. I would be happy to Email you the complete Patent Pending. I also believe that the Orion/Constellation Program is redundant and will undoubtedly turn into a money trap for the American taxpayer. Are you with me? Dan www.cyrus-space-system.comDaniel Sterling Samplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09734416849481279821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-54455380512630292822009-06-10T09:08:34.049-07:002009-06-10T09:08:34.049-07:00NASA’s budget needs the CHANGE WE BELIEVE IN as sh...NASA’s budget needs the CHANGE WE BELIEVE IN as shown in the following options in section III:<br /><br />I. The US Science Budget as of 2009:<br /><br />NSF $6.9 B, NOAA $4.6 B, NIH $ 0.78 B, and NASA Sciences $4.4 B<br /><br />Total Science Budget $16.68 B<br /><br />II. NASA Human Space Flight Budget as of 2009:<br /><br />Exploration $3.7 B, STS and ISS $5.8 B<br /><br />Total Human Spaceflight $9.5B<br /><br />III. Change WE Can Believe IN from 2015:<br /><br />NASA’s Human Spaceflight budget shall be $12 B for the Return to the Moon.<br /><br />NASA’s sciences budget shall be $3.0 B and $1.5 B for space sciences to support the return to the Moon and $1.5 B for earth sciences to support the return to the Moon. Any science program which does not support the return to the Moon shall be transferred to the NSF or to NOAA. <br /><br />Conclusion:<br /><br />The new human spaceflight budget shall protect the spaceborne life and the future human life on the surface of the Moon. <br /><br />H. S. Chen<br />Author of the “Human Space Exploration”HSCHENSPACEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09950813206034891566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-25146461168166396022009-06-07T22:25:48.960-07:002009-06-07T22:25:48.960-07:00Dr. Chiao,
My perspective comes as a 30 year old s...Dr. Chiao,<br />My perspective comes as a 30 year old structural engineer working for a mid-sized aerospace company. I do not have an agenda other than wanting to contribute to a meaningful project that pushes humanity out from earth. In broad strokes my thoughts are:<br /><br />1. I don’t particularly care whether we go to the moon, Mars, asteroids, or even LEO satellite repair as long as we do it with both humans and robots. I would happily sign up to work any of the above projects. They’re all inspirational and they all contribute to the bottom line of developing the technology we need to do more in the future. I view heated arguments pushing for one over the other as petty, egotistical and ultimately destructive. In my humble opinion it’s like winning the lottery and tearing your family apart arguing about how you want to spend the money. <br /><br />2. NASA is probably not realistically capable of developing its own launch vehicle on time and within 3x its budget. From my perspective NASA and the large aerospace companies are filled with "system engineers" who have questionable technical abilities. They usually mean well, but ultimately they cannot deliver on the grand visions and they compensate by being risk adverse to the point of counter productivity. These are good people and I would be proud to call many of them my friends and neighbors given the opportunity, but as long as they're supported in government jobs and in big corporations we will continue to flounder. <br /><br />3. Ares I seems like it should be killed off. I’m a nobody and I don't pretend to know everything, but I have yet to meet a single engineer from any discipline from any organization working directly on the project that fully believes in it. I want to believe, but all the first hand negativity is disheartening. Also, as far as I can tell from my humble viewpoint, it doesn't provide anything worth its cost and there are systems either available or nearly available that will do things cheaper than the government.<br /><br />4. I strongly support commercial development based on NASA research. However, encouraging commercial development will only work if we don’t drag them down with all the overhead that comes with working with the government. My take on government contracts is “you are what you eat”. From my view at the bottom of the pile it seems that the big companies have become government like in their inability to perform efficiently in part because their money comes primarily from government and they have to jump through too many red tape covered hoops. Again, there are lots of fantastic people involved so my views are of the system and not of the people who turn the crank. <br /><br />5. “Cost Plus” government contracts should be discontinued. In my experience, whatever theoretical advantages they provide are marginalized by gross abuses that have contributed to an upwelling of questionable talent. I could share stories for hours and I am certain I am not alone in this regard.<br /><br />There is always more to discuss on complicated subjects such the one you have been tasked with. I envy your opportunity to hear all of these viewpoints and to work with your colleagues to fairly weigh the benefits of the various directions!Bill Tandyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08985432880420276724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-74107094302638959392009-06-07T16:58:18.979-07:002009-06-07T16:58:18.979-07:00After reading all these comments I'd like to s...After reading all these comments I'd like to say my favorite two are from Mike @ June 2, 2009 8:42 AM and Kelly Starks @ June 6, 2009 6:31 PM. My recommendation would be to put Kelly Starks in front of your committee and listen carefully to what she is saying. She had more common sense in four paragraphs than I've seen out of Mike griffin's time at NASA.RayGunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02558983185935622861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-42365605806412419622009-06-06T18:31:13.499-07:002009-06-06T18:31:13.499-07:00I used to work in MOD in the shuttle program, then...I used to work in MOD in the shuttle program, then on station and at HQ, until I moved on from NASA programs in the mid ‘90’s. I came back for most of last year, and was writing system requirement specs for parts of the Orion. All during that time what echoed through most everyone on the team in various ways was how much less Orion and Aries was compared to shuttle. Black bitter humor of PM’s and system architects chiding folks to not try to design things to the safety and quality standards they had used for shuttle and ISS or other customers. Or frustrated humor of trying to toughen things up enough to survive the Aries-I’s abuse. Explanations of how EVA's and repairs, and other things that were normal design considerations for their other manned space systems, weren’t to be worried about since they weren’t required for Orion. Line engineers really hoping Dragon or something else cuts Orion out of the market so no one will ever need to fly on what they were building. And the general displeasure of working to build something that in all ways is inferior to the 1970’s era shuttle.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Apollo on steroids was seen and pitched as a retrospective reflight of Apollo, which inexplicably was expected to excite this generation as much as Apollo and the space race did their grandparents. But Apollo was replaced by shuttle, which was seen as a first step to make space safe and routine. Now NASA is effectively saying that that was a silly goal and we should just be happy with flags and foot prints, and space as a spectacle. If even NASA can’t see space as of value to develop and go to, human space flight as worth developing and moving forward, why should the public care about it? If a half century after Von Braun at NASA sketched out the Apollo capsules, all NASA can think of or pull of is redeveloping the same old concept, what value is NASA to the world or history?<br /><br /> <br /><br />At this point, I’m sick enough about this I’d push to just refurb the shuttles for another decade or so. Maybe refit them and rework the configuration into what they were suppose to be in the first place. Fly the shuttle based LEO to Lunar surface and back craft out of the shuttle bays as the lunar return craft rather the Altair on a mega Aries-V. At least the shuttle deployed lunar Landers were recoverable and reusable. If NASA can’t manage that, after laughingly failed to even think of moving forward – drop return to the moon and all NASA manned launches. Buy flights from Russia or SpaceX or whoever, and lay-off NASA manned space employee base. If we can’t do better then this 40 years after Apollo NASA and its employees don’t deserve a job.<br /><br /><br />Kelly Starks<br /><br />P.S.<br />On June 4th the orlando sentinel reported <br />...Constellation's development costs are now projected at more than $40 billion through 2015, up from $28 billion in 2006....<br /><br />This is higher then NASA projected cost to build a new fleet of fully reusable shuttles.Kelly Starkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07859020384869273575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5323714887398544512.post-50336018148094923792009-06-05T13:54:27.801-07:002009-06-05T13:54:27.801-07:00A couple of quick thoughts:
1. The Ares I vs. EE...A couple of quick thoughts:<br /><br />1. The Ares I vs. EELV discussion is full of hidden agendas. Either rocket system CAN put people in orbit. Period. Anything suggested to the contrary is spin.<br /><br />2. The REAL problem with the lunar architecture has nothing to do with this rocket or that rocket, one manifest or another. It is purpose. We don't have a real reason to go back to the Moon. In my opinion we have a lunar program because President Bush needed something uplifiting to say after the Columbia accident. NASA then generated a document of hundreds of scientific objectives related to the Moon but didn't commit to any of them, probably for fear of picking the objective with the least followers and making enemies of the ones not picked. We just spent orders of magnitude greater than the lunar program in Iraq and in the bailouts. Money isn't a problem. We have way more than we need. What we don't have is a compelling justification to use that money in space. We need to take Obama's national priorities (I suggest Energy in particular) and map it to lunar activity that would have a transformational impact on the nation and the world. That's the only way we should go back to the Moon. Geology isn't going to cut it and Mars isn't going to cut it.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14260691718749192867noreply@blogger.com