NASA

The Augustine commission report guessing game begins

Four weeks from today—August 31—the Review of US Human Space Flight Plans Committee is expected to deliver its final report containing recommendations for the White House regarding the future of NASA’s human spaceflight programs. Although the committee is still hard at work, with two more public hearings scheduled for this Wednesday and the following Wednesday in Washington, there are rumors, or at least guesses, about what the committee’s final report will contain.

Flightglobal.com reported this morning that the 100-page final report will include options to extend the shuttle, continue Ares 1 and Orion, and develop the shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle concept that John Shannon presented to the committee at its first Washington hearing in June. Flightglobal.com adds that it “is not aware of any Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle options being included at this time”.

Florida Today, meanwhile, offered today its list of “5 things you’ll see in president’s space report”. Those five things, according to Florida Today’s John Kelly, are an extension of the ISS through 2020, an option to close the human spaceflight gap by extending the shuttle, a likely recommendation to cancel Ares 1, skipping a Moon landing in favor of going directly to Mars or the “flexible path” approach discussed by the committee last Thursday, and that the panel “will make Obama decide”. That last one was a given from the beginning of the committee’s work: chairman Norm Augustine made it clear that the committee would provide scenarios for the White House to consider, but the final decision as to which one to pick would be up to the administration (and, ultimately, Congress as well.)

53 comments to The Augustine commission report guessing game begins

  • Hey I help run Collectors’ Quest and decided to organize a feature week on U.S. space exploration artifacts in celebration of the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11. I have a few guys who are displaying some really interested collections. You can check it out here: http://www.collectorsquest.com/featured-week/Space+.html

  • richardb

    Here is what a member of the A-Team said
    “NASA does not have the budget or the ability to simultaneously develop new systems and continue operating existing ones, hence the gap in access to the International Space Station,” said Princeton astrophysicist Christopher Chyba, a member of the Augustine sub-group that studied missions beyond low Earth orbit. “In fact, it’s unclear that NASA has the funding for any scenarios that do anything important beyond low Earth orbit prior to 2020.”
    If so then any recommendation to extend Shuttle necessarily limits a crewed replacement vehicle. This guy said “…does not have the budget or ability..” So its not just money, its the extra people to simultaneously develop a new rocket while running Shuttle.
    Nasa is in a really bad spot. Shuttle extension further delays CLV or its just as expensive, just as time consuming to develop alternatives such as NSC, Direct, EELV. I think its a reasonable assumption that should Shuttle be extended to 2014 or beyond another expensive stand down will occur due to accident, malfunction, weather or human error. That further delays a CLV replacement til the next decade.
    Going with Shuttle extension takes Nasa further and further from that space faring future it wants. On the other hand, not doing the Shuttle extension forces the USG to poor billions into Russian hands for Soyuz rides while thousands of American aerospace workers are laid off.

    Then you have a President who is prepared to poor billions into Acorn’s pockets, GM autoworkers pockets, Cash for Clunkers, Palestinian and Hamas pockets and thousands of other low return programs. But his outyear budgets for Nasa continue a long decline.

    I look forward to their complete analysis and options.

  • Ben Joshua

    I agree with richardb’s assessment of NASA’s circumstances, but take issue with the last paragraph. Reflexive anti-Obama, anti-liberal statements from posters seem out of place and just not applicable.

    A quick reminder that it was a liberal President Kannedy who primed the Apollo pump which led not just to the moon but to technology developments that took the economy, higher education and the general culture on a big step forward.

    But it was an anti-liberal President Nixon who let the budget run dry on Apollo, AAP and the original “space taxi” shuttle/S1-B design, and the anti-liberal Presidents Bush who set forth lofty visions and goals and then neglected to bring out the national checkbook to support even a respectable start toward those lofty ends. Anyone remember the anti-liberal President Reagan’s dramatic NASP “announcement” following the Challenger disaster? Anyone seen NASP recently?

    And think of him what you will, it was the sort-of-left-leaning President Clinton who made the tough decision on a space station program after several administrations had kicked it down the road.

    So please check your political predilections at the posting door. We are, most generally, richardb and I, pro space exploration and pro space development. Many of us of a liberal bent remember May 5, 1961, and the childhood wonder of seeing ECHO pass overhead at night. We flew Estes rockets, visited the Telstar ground station with awe, and looked forward with national pride and the excitement of discovery to an age of space exploration in our lifetimes.

    If you want to play a part in re-focusing NASA and commercial space, stop casting stones and ask the hard questions about what will work politically, commercially and culturally to put space exploration and development in a steady, ongoing process, like some agencies or companies that don’t need to get a do-or-die budget through congress each cycle, or “re-ignite the public’s excitement.”

    Our solar system awaits.

  • A quick reminder that it was a liberal President Kannedy who primed the Apollo pump which led not just to the moon but to technology developments that took the economy, higher education and the general culture on a big step forward.

    But it was an anti-liberal President Nixon who let the budget run dry on Apollo, AAP and the original “space taxi” shuttle/S1-B design, and the anti-liberal Presidents Bush who set forth lofty visions and goals and then neglected to bring out the national checkbook to support even a respectable start toward those lofty ends. Anyone remember the anti-liberal President Reagan’s dramatic NASP “announcement” following the Challenger disaster? Anyone seen NASP recently?

    For someone who objects to “reflexive” policy comments, you certainly have some of your own. The “liberal” JFK wouldn’t recognize today’s Democratic Party, nor they him. The Apollo funds dried up as a result of the “liberal” LBJ, starting in 1967-68. The “anti-liberal” Nixon initiated Shuttle in 1972. It was the “anti-liberal” Ronald Reagan who kicked off the space station program in 1984.

    The world is a lot more complicated than “liberal” and “anti-liberal.”

  • Also, NASP was a scam, so it’s no surprise that it didn’t happen.

  • common sense

    @Florida Today:

    It is not the charter of the panel to provide a recommendation (i.e. “something that recommends (or expresses commendation of) a person or thing as worthy or desirable “) but rather to provide options (i.e. “one of a number of things from which only one can be chosen”).

    So if they provide a recommendation then they are out of line since it is not their charter.

    ——————
    http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/about/charter.html

    3. Scope and Objectives: The Committee shall conduct an independent review of ongoing U.S. human space flight plans and programs, as well as alternatives, to ensure the Nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the future of human space flight – one that is safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable. The Committee should aim to identify and characterize a range of options that spans the reasonable possibilities for continuation of U.S. human space flight activities beyond retirement of the Space Shuttle.

  • Major Tom

    “‘NASA does not have the budget or the ability to simultaneously develop new systems and continue operating existing ones, hence the gap in access to the International Space Station,’ said Princeton astrophysicist Christopher Chyba, a member of the Augustine sub-group that studied missions beyond low Earth orbit.”

    That’s why NASA has to stop spending tens of billions of dollar needlessly and poorly reinventing the LEO wheel with Ares I and rely on existing launch vehicles like EELVs or Falcon 9.

    “‘In fact, it’s unclear that NASA has the funding for any scenarios that do anything important beyond low Earth orbit prior to 2020.'”

    Simply not true, even by the Augustine Committee’s own numbers. They’ve stated that they have $80 billion to work with. Even if we add another five years of Shuttle operations at $4 billion per year and another five years of ISS operations at $2 billion per year, that’s only $30 billion total. There would still be another $50 billion left over to play with. NASA is currently planning to spend $40 billion of that reinventing the LEO wheel with Ares I/Orion. As long as the agency doesn’t do that, there should be tens of billions of dollar available to pursue heavy lift, in-space propellant provisioning, EDSs, landers, etc.

    Chyba is a great thinker, but unfortunately this particular statement was just wrong.

    “its just as expensive, just as time consuming to develop alternatives such as NSC, Direct, EELV.”

    Wrong. Shuttle side-mount take $6.6 billion and 4.5 years, DIRECT takes $8.3 billion and 3 years, Delta IV takes $1.3 billion and 4.5 years, and a commercial Atlas V takes $0.4 million and 4 years. Even if we assume several billions of dollars of cost growth and a couple more years of development, all of these options are billions of dollars cheaper than Ares I, and they’re operational years earlier than Ares I’s likely 2017-2019 availability.

    “Then you have a President who is prepared to poor billions into Acorn’s pockets, GM autoworkers pockets, Cash for Clunkers, Palestinian and Hamas pockets and thousands of other low return programs.”

    What does any of this off-topic diatribe have to do with Augustine Committee?

    “But his outyear budgets for Nasa continue a long decline.”

    Wrong. NASA’s annual budget is projected to rise by over a billion dollars in the latest five-year budget request.

    I’m not trying to be mean, but you havn’t gotten one fact right in any of your posts going back several threads, and you’re repeating the same erroneous and off-topic arguments. Please do your homework before you post or don’t bother posting. You’re wasting your time and other posters’ time.

    Ugh…

  • Ben Joshua

    Rand Simberg makes the essential point that, “The world is a lot more complicated than “liberal” and “anti-liberal.””

    Though we take different views of some of the finer points of NASA political history, I’m guessing we both want to see forward steps taken in space exploration and development.

    My bottom line point, however clumsily delivered, was that space politics has less to do with liberal and conservative governance ideologies, and a lot more to do, and annoyingly so, with turf. Congressional, bureaucratic and contractor tugs of political war, and space proponents seeking a way through to just get a sustainable program in place, even as they disagree with one another about goals and architecture.

    I thank Rand for making the point more directly and objectively.

    Now it will be interesting to see if the final written product of the Augustine Commission is more an expression of the commission members’ analytical perspectives and technical assessments, or if those are subsumed by the raw politics of space decisionmaking. By the way, the power centers in congress might end up having more of a say so on the future of NASA and commercial space than the president. Watch for lots of behind the scenes wrangling.

    What a crazy way to set sail on an uncharted sea.

  • Brad

    “Wrong. NASA’s annual budget is projected to rise by over a billion dollars in the latest five-year budget request.”

    Is that a projection from the Obama administration? Is that for the entire NASA budget, or just the human spaceflight component? And is that billion in constant dollars or inflated dollars?

    According to Florida Today, “NASA’s human spaceflight budget through 2020, however, has been cut significantly. NASA had expected to have $108 billion to carry out its moon program. But the budget projection through 2020 now stands at $81.5 billion.”

    Doesn’t sound like an increase to me.

  • My bottom line point, however clumsily delivered, was that space politics has less to do with liberal and conservative governance ideologies, and a lot more to do, and annoyingly so, with turf.

    We can safely agree on that. It is a major theme of my piece last week in The New Atlantis. Space simply isn’t important, politically speaking.

  • Brad

    Even though the Augustine report will only spell out options, what they say about those options in terms of cost, risk, time and capability end up as de-facto recommendations.

    With all the focus by others on Moon vs Mars and Ares vs EELV, I would hope that two vital points of the NASA status quo don’t slip the notice of the committee: the bloated size of the Orion capsule and the abandonment of advanced space propulsion.

    Part of the reason Orion needs such a damn big booster is because NASA claimed they sized the capsule to meet the needs of possible future missions, such as a 6 man Mars mission. Yet the Apollo moldline limits the Orion to typical lunar return velocities. The latest DRM 5.0 talks about using a “legacy” Orion capsule which therefore limits reentry speed to under 12 km/sec.

    That implies that (absent a retro burn which would add enormous mass and extra risk to the mission) the actual launch windows available for Mars would be much less frequent than the typical 26 month period. Maybe even as bad as once every 15 years! Otherwise the return speed would be too fast for the Orion capsule.

  • Major Tom

    “Is that a projection from the Obama administration?”

    It’s the White House’s FY 2010 budget request for NASA.

    “Is that for the entire NASA budget, or just the human spaceflight component?”

    Total NASA budget, FY 2009 compared to FY 2014.

    “And is that billion in constant dollars or inflated dollars?”

    Constant.

    “According to Florida Today, ‘NASA’s human spaceflight budget through 2020, however, has been cut significantly. NASA had expected to have $108 billion to carry out its moon program. But the budget projection through 2020 now stands at $81.5 billion.'”

    I havn’t been able to confirm the human space flight figures, especially the $100 billion plus references to prior Bush II budgets. But I suspect that they’re in error. As near as I can tell, they assume generous inflationary figures that were never in the Bush II outyears.

    But regardless, the other poster’s statement was that the “outyear budgets for Nasa [sic] continue a long decline”, which is simply not true. The topline NASA budget is not declining.

    “Doesn’t sound like an increase to me.”

    Although I’m as guilty as anyone else, to a certain extent, all this budgetary nitpicking is secondary to plans for how that money is going to be spent. Regardless of whether the human space flight budget is $80 billion or $100 billion, NASA can’t afford to spend half or almost half of that budget just getting back to LEO. If NASA does that, and especially if NASA also has to pick up extended tabs for Shuttle and ISS, there will be little to nothing left over for activities beyond LEO. This is especially wasteful today when there are much more cost-effective LEO alternatives in operation or near operation.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “I would hope that two vital points of the NASA status quo don’t slip the notice of the committee: the bloated size of the Orion capsule”

    The possibility of launching Orion uncrewed, turning it into a true, in-space exploration vehicle, and launching crew on small capsules (Atlas V/CTV, Falcon 9/Dragon, etc.) to rendezvous with Orion was mentioned during the Augustine Committee’s meeting at KSC.

    (This option was explored by Steidle’s team. It would be sad to find out that Griffin stubbornly wasted a half-decade on Ares only to be told out this was the right path all along.)

    “and the abandonment of advanced space propulsion.”

    There was some of this, too, especially beamed propulsion, during the KSC meeting.

    FWIW…

  • Allen R

    A slight correction to Ben Joshua’s post above.
    JFK was not a liberal on most issues. Athough he had a ” D ” beside his name, he was in truth, a tax cutting conservative Democrat. Liberals love to hold Kennedy up as their poster boy but alas, his politics were more in line with Reagan’s than FDR. John F. Kennedy would not recognize the Democrat party today. All socialism, no solutions.

    To the Augustine Commission.
    Please pick Direct………..pretty please!

  • Ben Joshua

    Allen R and I appear to agree wholeheartedly on Direct 3.0 and the Augustine Commission.

    Our political differences though, beg a question: If you want those liberals who have been supportive of forward steps in space to continue being supportive, wouldn’t you be more measured in your non-space political rhetoric?

    JFK was indeed a mixed bag, the way we view the right to left spectrum today. In his short time in office, his positions on many issues evolved. Neither one of us should paint his record with a broad brush. The Peace Corps., Food for Peace, JFK’s speech on peace, civil rights, and importantly, the way he cut taxes,and a host of other progressive initiatives serve to contrast his record with that of Reagan’s.

    If you want to gain support for space exploration among more dems, and I think that would be a good idea, it would help to use the correct name for their party and drop facile, but in the end insulting slogans that do not conform to policy data, before making the case for sustained efforts beyond LEO.

    You and I could do well to apply the Direct team’s critical thinking skills to our own untested political assumptions. I daresay we would end up with a good deal of common ground.

    I only hope the Augustine Commission report is based on hard nosed critical analysis, and that the logic of Direct 3.0 is more powerful than the competing vested interests that want their space bridges to nowhere fully funded at the expense of actually traveling beyond LEO and reaping the eventual benefits.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Ben,

    While I agree with you about the non-space stuff, you are, IMHO, dead wrong, about Direct 3 being the best way forward. We don’t need an HLV vehicle.

    Its time for true in-space infrastructure.

  • Ben Joshua

    I assume Ferris Valyn is referring to orbital fuel depots or fuel / oxidizer transfers, as a way to remove a big ticket HLV from the budget and markedly expand the functional list of beyond LEO destinations. (I would add to this a Vasimir propulsion capability, ISRU research and eventual re-usability features in LV and LEO transport.)

    Apparently some of the commission members are thinking along these lines, and a serious Augustine option to that effect would indeed represent the kind of paradigm shift we need to help solve the budget and sustainability issues. And this is one of those major decision points in time where such a decision would be most effective.

    If the Augustine report highlights such an approach as a viable option, can contractors, congress and NASA upper echelons be brought on board, or is this decision moment just a battle of the boosters?

    It can be argued that past decision points have gone down a wrong path, and might do so again this time. Perhaps Direct could be seen as the superior “wrong path” if a paradigm shift in a great many people’s thinking is not achieved.

    But yes, if sustainable space operations can trump contractor welfare programs and one shots among decision-makers, wow – let depots, fuel transfer, ISRU, Vasimir and space-only vehicles take us to NEOS, Phobos, Deimos, gravity well orbits and an amazing future.

    The compelling numbers and capability of such an approach are brand new thinking to a lot of space policy staffers and NASA/contractor middle echelons. Get to them with this data and information and I suspect they will see the value of it.

  • common sense

    @Brad:

    “Even though the Augustine report will only spell out options, what they say about those options in terms of cost, risk, time and capability end up as de-facto recommendations”

    Hmm. They are not recommendations, sorry. Recommendations and options ARE NOT the same thing. You are free to interpret it as you wish BUT as reported in the newspaper it simply is a total misinterpretation at best and a lie at worst.

  • common sense

    To All:

    It is NOT THE CHARTER of the Augustine panel to pick, choose, recommend or otherwise select anything.

    How complicated is that?

    I sure hope none of these posters are engineers or scientists. Because the first job of such is to comprehend the job they have to do. Read the requirements. Etc. Augustine’s panel requirements are posted above. Make sure you read. Interpretation of the VSE and its requirements (live within your budget being one!) led to Orion/Ares problems.

  • @common sense

    “It is NOT THE CHARTER of the Augustine panel to pick, choose, recommend or otherwise select anything.”

    The HSFR is not giving an infinite set of possibilities to President Obama’s administration. They are provided several options. But they are picking, choosing, and identifying the best proposals for options that fit within NASA’s budget and perhaps some options which would call for increasing the space program budget. Those proposals HSFR select to provide as options to the President are in effect recommendations. “Here these are the options that we came up with based on the bests proposals we have studied. You decide.” Those options are recommnedations, get use to it.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Gary,

    Sorry but they are options, and always will be. The way things are being positioned, what you are seeing is that the HSF will provide what the implications & results will be if various options are selected – what are the budget implications, how much of an impact will there be on commercial spaceflight, do the goals realistically meet the budgets, what is the required TRL of potential hardware, and so on.

    But those are options, and will remain options

    There are no recomendations being given to policy makers – there are internal recomendations, and no doubt the members themselves will have thoughts/ideas, but the report itself will not contain recomendations.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mr. Joshua,

    That is exactly what I was referring to. And to answer your question, I do believe we are very close to the required paradigm shift, for that to happen.

  • common sense

    @Gary:

    How many options do you think there are? Of course it is not an infinite number. And here are the limiting factors: “to ensure the Nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the future of human space flight – one that is safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable”.

    Innovative – Affordable – Sustainable.

    So if any of the options does not fall into those categories above then they are not to be considered. And they have to answer requirements a through d in the charter, if not they are not to be considered.

    The budget is for the most part known therefore Affordable and Sustainable are OBJECTIVELY easily determined. Innovative is the one that is the most subjective. Therefore if between 2 options that are as affordable and sustainable the choice must be made for that option that is innovative. I cannot see how difficult it’d be to rank the options.

    If they, the panel, go against these directions they are not doing their job.

    The WH will decide based on the best ranking I would assume, of course, modulo anything political, such as ensuring the workforce at MSFC or ATK has a job (the original requirements for Shuttle derived hardware).

    In any case, I would be surprised if someone such as Augustine does not understand that and would go against the WH directions. Then again you never know. They are not recommendations, only options that will be ranked based on the criteria above for anything technical. For the political aspect of it, well, it is incumbent to the WH, not the panel.

  • common sense

    About “innovative” I should say the following though.

    Technically, it can be determined on the TRL level of each option and associated subsystems.

    However, innovation may lie as well in the funding (e.g. COTS vs. cost-plus), in how management is dealt with, how the workforce will be ramping down and up to address the whole program, etc.

    But one can find a way to measure/weigh any of the options.

  • @Ferris Valyn and common sense

    If, for instance and as an example only, the Ares I/Orion is not included in any of these “options” or if all of the “options” emphasize cutting the Ares I/Orion vehicle then that is in fact a recommendation that the Constellation program be discarded. The absence or exclusion of other proposals from those options recommends the selected proposals just as when a search committee goes through a list of 100 applicants for a job, interviews them and then selects 3 to based on a set of criteria to recommend to CEO. Yes, he was given 3 options, but those options were recommended. To say the the panel is not making recommendations is the same as a janitor saying that he does not clean restrooms he engineers clean restrooms. Quit trying to make a false distinction.

    OTOH, I do agree that all the predictions being made by various media outlets and blogs are silly at this point and are essentially pure speculation. For everyday of the year, at least 1 person predicts an earthquake,. So when an earthquake occurs on a certain day is the person who made the prediction an oracle? Or just an opportunist?

  • BTW, “Innovative – Affordable – Sustainable” can be defined fairly broadly and any number of proposals could fit within that criteria if budgeted over sufficient period of time. Just as in the hiring example I gave above, where there maybe 20 – 30 applicants who meet the hiring critieria for the job, but the committee has to select only 3 among those that meet the criteria.

  • common sense

    @Gary:

    As I said, the WH will make the decision, not the panel.

    I don’t know why you think they will make “recommendations”. If they were to do that, not only would they go against their charter but they would also undermine their credibility as there might be obvious conflict of interest.

    So all in all you can say they will make recommendations but they won’t. It only is your interpretation. I suspect (crystal ball is on now) there will be an opportunity for anyone to rebuke the options. And I will add that considering the time they have they will most likely use the options that were offered to them by the community. I would assume they will review the cost estimates and correct them if they feel necessary. They may come up with options of their own but considering the time they have again it’ll be very difficult if not impossible to give such options any realistic budget figures.

    So again, the options will most likely be those already offered, whose cost will be (re)estimated.

    Someone in the WH will look at these options and compare them with Orion/Ares and will make a decision.

    I sense you fear for Orion/Ares and it is understandable since they are in a hole! Had they been on time and on budget there probably would not be any panel considering what this WH has to deal with elsewhere. So when a program is that bad then it makes perfect sense to look at it.

  • common sense

    “3. Scope and Objectives: The Committee shall conduct an independent review of ongoing U.S. human space flight plans and programs, as well as alternatives, to ensure the Nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the future of human space flight – one that is safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable. The Committee should aim to identify and characterize a range of options that spans the reasonable possibilities for continuation of U.S. human space flight activities beyond retirement of the Space Shuttle.

    This is the clause that you provided in your above comment. You highlighted the last part, but seem to have missed the significance of the first part: “to ensure the Nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the future of human space flight”. That is the strategy for each option that the that the HSFR presents. Furthermore, I have read the charter, and nowhere in the charter is there a prohibition against making recommendations.

    In fact there are two terms in the charter used in conjunction with identifying the options:

    characterize: Definition – from Free Dictionary online

    1. To describe the qualities or peculiarities of: characterized the warden as ruthless.
    2. To be a distinctive trait or mark of; distinguish: the rash and high fever that characterize this disease; a region that is characterized by its dikes and canals.

    evaluate: Definition – from Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    1 : to determine or fix the value of
    2 : to determine the significance, worth, or condition of usually by careful appraisal and study

    The charter charges them with characterizing the options and evaluating the existing program and all reasonable alternatives. Another assigning value to each proposal and options. So here is the defintion for

    <blockquote<recommend: Definition – from Free Dictionary Online

    1. To praise or commend (one) to another as being worthy or desirable; endorse: recommended him for the job; recommended a car instead of an SUV.
    2. To make (the possessor, as of an attribute) attractive or acceptable: Honesty recommends any person.
    3. To commit to the charge of another; entrust.
    4. To advise or counsel: She recommended that we be on time. See Synonyms at advise.

    Notice that last definition? Recommend is a synonym to advise. That is actually in the charter in clause 4 ironically:

    4. Description of Duties: The Committee will provide advice only

    So, it is perfectly legitimate for the HSFR to “recommend” options for President Obama to decide upon. You were making much ado about false semantics. I am sorry that I have to go through this extended explanation, but I have seen this silly argument trying to distinguish providing options from giving recommendations and that the HSFR cannot give recommendations based on their charter.

  • common sense

    Look at Q&A at http://hsf.nasa.gov/allAnswers.php From the panel members. Ae you saying they don’t know what they do?

    Q: Will the recommendations of the committee affect NASA to ensure it is able to benefit customer (U.S. taxpayers) of a variety of ages and background? That is, upon implementation of the recommendations, will my 8 year old niece, 30 year old friend and factory worker, 50 year old professional and neighbor (who make awesome Cajun food, btw), and 70 year old retiree benefit?

    A: The committee will not be making recommendations. The committee is charged with developing options that span the reasonable possibilities for continuation of U.S. human space flight activities beyond retirement of the Space Shuttle.

  • common sense

    And btw “I” am not playing semantics, I read the charter as it is. And nowhere do they mention “recommendation”, only “option”.

  • Bob Mahoney

    The committee will offer X number of options, highlighting the projected cost of each. The administration will then choose the least expensive one (perhaps even trimming it back some) because space just ain’t a big item for them, certainly not one worth spending political capital (i.e., asking for $$$) on. By establishing the committee and then selecting something defined for them by these experts, they have provided themselves cover.

    This is essentially what happened with AAP, and with shuttle, and with SEI, it’s precisely what happened with Freedom => Option A (Alpha, which begat ISS), and it’s very likely going to happen this time, too.

    My guess for the “chosen” option? What I’ve said all along: develop a minimal capsule to replace shuttle for ferrying crew to and from ISS, and shelve all beyond-LEO stuff into “Advanced Studies.” They might stick with Ares I to provide the illusion of keeping jobs, but the excessive price tag (coupled with all the perceived hand-waving) may just be enough to kill the Stick and point NASA toward EELV exploitation.

    I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but I’ve always trusted history to be a pretty good prognosticator…especially with so many data points from a sizable sampling of nearly identical circumstances.

  • JohnM

    Bob M.,
    I think that you have captured the situation. All the discussion as to whether the A-Team is giving “options” vs. “reccomendations” misses the point. You look at areas such as the Defense department budget. While it “appears” to be flat or going up slightly, in reality they are bringing the supplementary budget stuff under the main budget. Therefore the defense department will be taking a big hit. The Pentagon has a lot more friends in Congress than NASA. My opinion that any projected multi-year budget for NASA is very, very optimistic compared to what will play out in reality.

    I have been maintaining all along that the whole “Go to the Moon first” and “Skip the Moon and go to [Mars | NEO]” are both going to be disappointed. The best that will happen is that we will have a long gap between the Shuttle and some kind of minimal LEO capability to the ISS (while there are arguments as to whether the ISS was a good or bad spending of money, the fact is that it is something up there flying). The ISS provides the only pull for any human space flight program. I hope that I am wrong, but I am predicting that you can forget about any beyond LEO in my lifetime (I just turned 47).

    In some ways, going up with Apollo, I almost wish they would cancel all
    the HSF. The dangling of the carrot after all these years has gotten too
    hard to hope for or follow. I became a Aerospace Engineer based on the dreams of Apollo. I realized back by the early 1990s that the opportunities to work on space would never happen for many of those like me that chose the original path based on the dreams of Apollo.

  • Brad

    Ahem, to the person who calls himself “common sense”

    “They are not recommendations, sorry. Recommendations and options ARE NOT the same thing.”

    Do you understand the meaning of de-facto? It seems not.

    “You are free to interpret it as you wish BUT as reported in the newspaper [your opinion] simply is a total misinterpretation at best and a lie at worst.”

    Lighten up Francis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrllCZw8jiM

  • “A: The committee will not be making recommendations. The committee is charged with developing options that span the reasonable possibilities for continuation of U.S. human space flight activities beyond retirement of the Space Shuttle.”

    This was at best a disingenuous and contradictory answer in regards to the charter. I suspect that answer was made in attempt to shift away some of the responsibility for the outcome of the report and relieve some of the public pressure on the panel. The charter clearly charges the panel with evaluating each proposal or program and provide the options which would give NASA the best course depending upon the nation’s priorities. The panel is not giving a full range of options, only options which lead to the best possible outcomes under the affordable, sustainable, and reasonable guidelines. I would certainly hope they would not give options that would be detrimental to NASA and the space program. So, if you had read the definitions in the above, advising the President and making recommendations to the President are synonymous.

    @Bob Mahoney and JohnM

    I realize that the report will have a significant impact on NASA and the space program one way or the other. But at this point, your predictions are little more than speculative and unsubstantiated. My comments to common sense was to point out that he was making an argument based on false semantics which belies the true nature of the report. The review process is an assertive approach and not nonassertive one.

  • richardb

    Major Tom, even when I post almost verbatim quotes from the A-Team you want to be argumentative, insulting and boring and even worse you think so high of yourself that you wish to challenge A-Team members. If you are so knowledgeable why aren’t you on that committee? Did you get an invitation to present? As for Nasa’s long term budget decline, the A-Team has addressed that many times and Gary Pullman of the Aerospace Corp said
    “Ares 1 faces an 18 months’ slip based solely on the White House’s 2010 budget request, which contains some $3.5 billion less for Constellation over the next four years than previously planned.” according to Space News. Major Tom, you’re embarrassing yourself with your endless argumentative and factually wrong statements.

    Ben Joshua, read the title of this blog “Space Politics”. Commenting on the political side of what the A-Team is doing is fair game. Its also fair game to comment on the the presidents political choices when it comes to Nasa. I think its fair to note that Obama is choosing to funnel 10’s of billions into programs that are very questionable while Nasa is gasping for a couple billions to save itself from a serious situation.

  • Major Tom

    “Major Tom, even when I post almost verbatim quotes from the A-Team”

    No, for the most part, you don’t. For example, you made broad claims that EELV, DIRECT, and Shuttle side-mount development costs as much as Ares I development and will take as much time, despite the fact that there are figures in documents on the Augustine Committee website that support exactly the opposite claim — that development of these launchers will be a fraction of Ares I’s costs and schedule.

    Again, if you can’t do your homework before you post, then don’t bother posting. It’s as much a waste of your time to post an unsubstantiated and false statement as it is for me to correct it.

    “you want to be argumentative, insulting and boring”

    Argue the post, not the poster. I havn’t called you any names. If you can’t participate in a discussion without calling the other poster names, then please take it elsewhere.

    “you think so high of yourself that you wish to challenge A-Team members.”

    On the contrary, as I already stated, I have great respect for Chyba and wouldn’t pretend that I could out think him on most issues.

    But on the narrow issue of the budget, by the very figures that are being discussed by the Augustine Committee and that are in the documents on the Committee’s website, Chyba’s statement is wrong. Even if Shuttle and ISS are each extended five years, at least $50 billion of the $80 billion the Committee has to work with should be left over. As long as $40 billion or more of that is flushed down the Ares I/Orion drain just getting back to LEO, there should be plenty of funding for pursuing activities beyond LEO.

    “If you are so knowledgeable why aren’t you on that committee?”

    How do you know that I’m not? The Committee is in recess for lunch right now, after all.

    (For the record, I’m not. But it’s goofy to claim that false statements shouldn’t be challenged just because they come from the mouth of someone sitting on a blue-ribbon panel.)

    “As for Nasa’s long term budget decline… Gary Pullman of the Aerospace Corp said ‘Ares 1 faces an 18 months’ slip based solely on the White House’s 2010 budget request, which contains some $3.5 billion less for Constellation over the next four years than previously planned.'”

    I don’t have access to Mr. Pullman’s work so I can’t and won’t say whether he’s right or not.

    However, I do have access to NASA’s FY 2010 budget figures (anyone with an internet connection does), and it’s a simple fact that NASA’s topline budget figure is projected to grow by more than a billion dollars by FY 2014. And that means that your statement that “his [President Obama’s] outyear budgets for Nasa continue a long decline” is simply false.

    Again, if you can’t do your homework before you post, then don’t bother posting. It’s as much a waste of your time to post an unsubstantiated and false statement as it is for me to correct it.

    “I think its fair to note that Obama is choosing to funnel 10’s of billions into programs that are very questionable while Nasa is gasping for a couple billions to save itself from a serious situation.”

    This is a goofy statement. How are a couple billion dollars going to materially change an $80 billion civil human space flight budget? It’s not a question of whether Augustine or NASA has $80 or $82 billion to play with. It’s a questions of how effectively that $80 billion is spent.

    FWIW…

  • common sense

    Well people, whatever I or possibly even you (unless you sit on the panel) think the panel is doing or will do has realistically no bearing whatsoever on the outcome. I think and naively maybe hope that I am right and that the panel does not bear the responsibility you believe it has but rather the WH does. And I think y’all should really put the responsibility where it is, again in the WH for the decision and at NASA for the current execution of Constellation. I wish Ares/Orion was not in this deep hole but it is. I also believe that the WH will have to consider the political consequences (i.e. run it by Congress AND the electoral consequences) of their decision, not the panel. So in the end, there will be better or worse technical solutions BUT the solution will most likely be that solution that is sustainable financially but more so politically. No reason to jump up and down when you hear it as again it will be mostly the WH’s decision and it will make political sense to THEM. In those days of hurt, I seriously doubt they will ask to just terminate a program or two (Ares/Orion and Shuttle) that will lay off thousands of people but you never know. I also believe that the most expedient, least costly program will be the winner, provided again it can be politically sustained.

    BUT IT WILL BE THE WH’S DECISION, NOT THE PANEL’S.

  • Bob Mahoney

    @Gary Miles:

    “But at this point, your predictions are little more than speculative and unsubstantiated. ”

    Of course…like most of the blogosphere. But as I said, while I hope I’m wrong, time will tell…as it always does.

    I must admit, though, that I find your deeming such speculation as being less valuable (and declaring it as resting on so much less a foundation) than the blustery blizzard of electrons exchanged above in such a pointless argument over semantics rather amusing. Thanks for the chuckle.

    Cheers.

  • common sense

    Funny but I only see options…

    http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/08/augustine_commi_5.html

    http://twitpic.com/cv2pt

    No recommendation. Then again we can talk about semantics for ever…

  • Brad

    better written story link

    p://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/science/space/06space.html?hpw

    This suggests that 7 options are currently on the table, only three of which remain within projected budgets. It also suggests the 7 options will be whittled down to only 3 options for the final report by the committee.

    BTW common sense, thanx for the jpg link, it’s very informative.

  • Major Tom

    “Funny but I only see options…”

    Yes, but as the NYT and other articles indicate, the Augustine Committee has reduced the number of options from 864 to seven and will reduce the that to three or four. There will be no single recommendation, but as mentioned earlier in the thread, narrowing the options to such an extent does create _de facto_ recommendations.

    Moreover, Augustine stated earlier that the options would be rated against a TBD set of criteria. Those ratings will also make clear that certain options are better than others for certain criteria, again making _de facto_ recommendations even if the word “recommendation” never appears in the report.

    And we’re probably kidding ourselves if we don’t think that the President or the Science Advisor aren’t going ask Augustine what Augustine’s or the Committee’s favored option is and why. Oh but to be a fly on the wall during that discussion…

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “This suggests that 7 options are currently on the table”

    Here’s a link to an image of the slide that summarizes the seven options:

    http://twitpic.com/cv2pt

    Some interesting details in that table.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    And here’s the seven options described in text form:

    http://www.space.com/news/090805-human-spaceflight-options.html

    Mr. Bejmuk’s comments at the end of the article are spot on, and coming from the head of the Constellation Program Standing Review Board, rather indicative of the poor state of the program.

    FWIW…

  • JohnM

    The options or recommendations (it doesn’t matter) become clear. As I posted earlier, the only forcing function is ISS. First, I am betting that any option (or recomendation) >2010 budget is going to be a “non-starter” for the Whitehouse. I wish (and hope) that I am wrong, but I think the final Whitehouse decision will be the ISS focused. Ares I / Orion will slowly go along. We will be another 40 years in LEO plus an extended LEO capability gap during the 2011 – 2020 time frame. No moon, no Mars, no NEO and 30 – 40 years from now, we will still be having the
    same debate as today.

    I wish I were wrong … but I fear that I am not.

    John M

  • Brad

    Looking at the table of options some things leap out at me.

    1)The porklauncher, Ares I, looks dead. Only two of the seven options use Ares I, and one of those two options uses commercial crew services as well.

    2)Commercial crew services is going to happen. Five out of the seven options exploit commercial crew services.

    3)The Shuttle orbiter looks like it will still retire close to schedule. Only one of the seven options extends orbiter operations through 2015.

    4)Ares V may not survive. Even though HLV is endorsed with every option, Ares V is only included in four out of the seven, and those four (IMHO) consist of the less probable choices.

    5)Propellant depots are enabling to one option, and mentioned as enhancing three options, so depots are not ignored and have a fair chance for future development. Particularly when you take into account that commercial services are included in every option.

    6)The ISS is not going to de-orbit in 2016. Five of the seven options extend ISS operations through 2020. The committee’s hope to expand international cooperation will only emphasize the importance of the ISS. Perhaps this might not be a drain on NASA, if international cooperation offsets the cost of flying ISS beyond 2016.

  • Major Tom

    “As I posted earlier, the only forcing function is ISS.” (John M.)

    “Perhaps this might not be a drain on NASA, if international cooperation offsets the cost of flying ISS beyond 2016.” (Brad)

    Budget-wise, ISS shouldn’t be a forcing function or much of a drain. Her annual budget is something less than $2 billion per year and is already paid in the budget projections through 2016. Extending to 2020 should only take about $8 billion, call it $10 billion tops, out of the $80 billion the Augustine Committee has to play with. The key is not to waste $40 billion reinventing intermediate LEO lift (current Ares I/Orion cost projection) to get to ISS.

    ISS extension is arguably not worth $8-10 billion anyway, but it’s the least damaging of the three albatrosses (Ares I, Shuttle extension, and ISS extension) that NASA’s human space flight program faces.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “Looking at the table of options some things leap out at me.”

    Good observations.

    FWIW…

  • common sense

    @Major Tom:

    “Yes, but as the NYT and other articles indicate, the Augustine Committee has reduced the number of options from 864 to seven and will reduce the that to three or four. There will be no single recommendation, but as mentioned earlier in the thread, narrowing the options to such an extent does create _de facto_ recommendations.”

    This is because the options had to satisfy the requirements. Of course they will not provide options to go to a man landing on Jupiter next year. ;)

    “Moreover, Augustine stated earlier that the options would be rated against a TBD set of criteria. Those ratings will also make clear that certain options are better than others for certain criteria, again making _de facto_ recommendations even if the word “recommendation” never appears in the report.”

    Now that is a “new” development, expected, yet new. It had to be expected that someone would put a weight on those options. I still believe that the actual weighing system will come from the WH as it may involve much more than technical aspects. And what may look better to Augustine or you or I may not be what in the end looks better to the WH.

    “And we’re probably kidding ourselves if we don’t think that the President or the Science Advisor aren’t going ask Augustine what Augustine’s or the Committee’s favored option is and why. Oh but to be a fly on the wall during that discussion…”

    Back to my point above about the WH decision. And I never said they would not consult Augustine or the panel or anyone else to come up with a final result. My only point was that it was wrong to turn option into recommendation. It is clear that some will. Putting the cart before the horse does not help though.

    Pffff I am done with this now. Onto more constructive things like looking at said recommendations! ;) Arrghh I said it! Darn!

    @Brad:

    You’re welcome but the person to thank really is “Neil H.” at nasawatch.com. I think there are a lot of slides on the twitter website as well (http://www.twitter.com/NASA_HSF).

    @JohnM and Brad:

    Yep looks like good observations. The political sustainability issue will probably be the driver, not necessarily the timeline or the budget (trading very lightly here) though. Especilly considering that putting a person on Mars may look like a stunt that will not be achievable during this WH. I would say the chances are low. However, if it is preceived as a long term investement that will keep the workforce happy for the next 20 years then… And provides for real connections to national interests, more so than the other options… Anyway. So many ifs.

  • […] A few thoughts about the Review of US Human Space Flight Plans (aka Augustine committee) and what they have discussed to date, including Ed Crawley’s presentation yesterday (and to add to the discussion already taking place): […]

  • @Major Tom

    Lolololol! Damn! We actually agreed on something! ;)

  • Tom Weaver

    Ben Joshua comments were incorrect
    It is true that Kennedy was a DEMOCRAT and Nixon was a REPUBLICAN but no the roles the filled are different Kennedy was a CONSERVATIVE on most isssues and Nixon was Liberal on most issues.

    And the comment on funding is true – if there were votes to buy Obama would have no problem tossing more money then NASA could ever use at it. But the sad thing is the American Public does not really care much about space flight, so the funding is not there.

    If we (the US) were serious about space flight we could build any thing we could ever want. But as a nation we are directionless and lost in most catagories.

    Now on to the committe I wish they would give Direct a chance to win out but that is not the right thing since NASA does not want this – why build two launchers when one is all you really need.

    Tom

  • Anthony Hunt

    Guys, the rea l “potential” winner in this as I see it, is DIRECT3.0. Having read their full pdf presentation on their website,it seems to me the way to go as far as 1: preserving the shuttle workforce,having the growth potential for mission requirement expansion and finally represents a stand by former MSC engineers not to be cowed by the “NIH” factor so promoted by NASA . The potential problems pointed out by the first ‘all-up” firing of the first Ares 1 stage by ATK (vibration problems there might not be a true fix for) shows that Mr. Griffin was going off half-cocked by the reduction of lunar capability caused by lifting shortfalls of Ares 1 to the Orion spacecraft. DIRECTt restores this. It seems to me that a “too good to be true” mindset has been taken against DIRECT and the potential savings,return of capabilty beyond LEO it gives, and the resupply of the ISS it has given the ability to carry payload in the aft section behind the spacecraft. Iwas once a firm believer in Ares, but no more. The modifications to the VAB and launch structures alone don’t justify it!

Leave a Reply to Major Tom Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>