A Florida Today blog post references a video uploaded to YouTube this week about the Augustine committee and its work. The three-and-a-half-minute video is primarily clips from the various committee meetings, interspersed with other clips (Ares 1-X, Shuttle, Apollo moonwalk) and text slides, and without any voiceover:
The video itself is perhaps a bit subtle: it’s arguing for staying the course in Constellation, but doesn’t hit the viewer over the head repeatedly with that message. The closing slide asks viewers to contact the White House and Congress and “tell them you DO NOT Want to ‘Take a Chance’ with the U.S. Human Space Flight Program.” (capitalization and punctuation in original.) The information on the YouTube page, though, is rather more blunt: “Although a thorough review was conducted four years ago—and a direction chosen, contracts awarded, tests conducted, and rockets built—the Augustine committee wants to stop work and do something new,” it claims. “This will widen the gap between the retirement of the shuttle and its replacement vehicle, waste billions of dollars and threaten Americas [sic] presence in space. You can STOP this.” (Neither, though, mentioned that the Augustine committee is advisory only, and any decisions on the future of NASA’s human spaceflight program will be handed by the White House and Congress.)
So who produced the video? The video is posted to the account of “Rounderb”, and is his/her only video uploaded despite joining in January 2007. No other information is available on the site or in the video.
Yes, the video is sure subtle, but the closing slide makes it clear about the intent. Not only does the video (which is mostly words taken out of context) not hit the viewer over the head repeatedly with that message, it hardly makes that message convincing at all. For example, how Sally Ride’s comment about pears and kumquats has anything to do with this intent is perplexing.
I can do this kind of thing in text, and mine the transcript for words to assemble together to make whatever point I want to make. Taking remarks out of context like this is certainly unfair to the committee, and faintly libelous. I guess what keeps it from being annoying in this case is that it doesn’t come close to making a compelling, or even a strong, statement.
If I don’t want to take a chance, I can either kill off a crippled, unaffordable architecture, or I can kill off a relatively unstudied replacement for it. Take your pick.
Interesting that they say: “Although a thorough review was conducted four years ago—and a direction chosen, contracts awarded, tests conducted, and rockets built—the Augustine committee wants to stop work and do something new,†But the Orion direction that was chosen was a 6 crew vehicle. The current Orion contract had to be amended. The Augustine committee appears to be close to pointing out that the Orion (as an example) that we have today is a recent invention.
What about the Ares? Is the current Ares design the same as what we were told about, four years ago? I don’t think so.
Doug L. may think the video is subtle, I’d say it’s clear evidence of the bias of the panel. They are trying to push thru their own concepts in a two month study, while NASA has 4 years of progress they are showing with real hardware. And to Charles – NASA’s changes to Ares to swap the SSME for the J-2X and the 4-segment booster for the 5-segment booster were made because they would need them for the Ares V and didn’t want to develop two systems. It was actally a long-term “strategic decision” because it cost a year in schedule, but saved $4-5 billion in life cycle costs over the two vehicles. Instead of making knee-jerk reactions like the panel, NASA was looking at the future.
Johnny Rocket said: “NASA’s changes to Ares to swap the SSME for the J-2X and the 4-segment booster for the 5-segment booster were made because they would need them for the Ares V and didn’t want to develop two systems”
But what happened to the thorough review they did before starting Ares? Must not have been that thorough. And they missed the vibration problem common to solid rockets, another crack in the thorough review.
The point of the panel was not to find a way to make Constellation work, but to find any alternative than to support the Bush plan. No matter if the current system makes sense or not.
Which is why they come off sounding confused, because they were not allowed to consider all of our current options. Appearances are overruling the engineering again.
And to Charles – NASA’s changes to Ares to swap the SSME for the J-2X and the 4-segment booster for the 5-segment booster were made because they would need them for the Ares V and didn’t want to develop two systems.
The plan coming out of ESAS was to use the 4-segment FS, RS-25/Non-conformal tank US configuration up to ISS servicing. The 5-segment SRB was planned for the Ares V, but this was further down the road. I don’t see why the J-2X was selected over RS-25, except for perceived lower cost, which wasn’t true at all.
These changes in design were the death knell for the Stick. Perhaps they were needed because the 4-segment fell far short of its supposed performance capabilities determined from ESAS. But this should have been the red flag for reevaluating the entire architecture. After that point, CxP lost many of its supporters, me included.
The EELV option came very close to the 4-segment/RS-25 Ares I, and was clearly superior to the 5-segment in terms of cost.
The CxP crowd has argued that the Ares I and V costs have to be considered in total. This is ridiculous. Since when can you assume the uninterrupted steady development of two large human space flight systems? Again, it made sense only in theory, but was completely impractical and unreasonable.
Which gets to the basic problem, for the last 4 years, NASA was held hostage by an academician.
Johnny Rocket–
Since when does a slip from Mike Griffin’s promise of 2012 IOC to the current promise of 2015, let alone the Aerospace Corp’s estimate of 2019 IOC, constitute JUST ONE YEAR?
Fred–
You’re either an idiot or a liar. If you watched the public hearing on March 12, you saw that they incorporated SEVERAL reference cases and a BASELINE option… all of which are based on the PROGRAM OF RECORD.
So your pathetic excuse of an unaffordable, unsustainable, and impractical architecture was fully considered. And rejected.
I’d say it’s clear evidence of the bias of the panel. They are trying to push thru their own concepts in a two month study, while NASA has 4 years of progress they are showing with real hardware.
I think this mischaracterizes the Augustine panel effort. That panel isn’t doing a “study” of any concept. What they’ve been asked to do is provide options (OK, recommendations, whatever) for a human space flight future that might be affordable and serve national needs. The fact that NASA has 4 years of progress on the program of record is somewhat irrelevant, in that as part of the technical progress they’ve achieved, they’ve established a new level of understanding of its unaffordability. Given this, the Augustine panel will offer suggestions of other paths that some real study, ideally taking more than 60 days, may show more value.
That the video has the committee sounding somewhat confused is just a reflection of the confusion that NASA seems reluctant to admit. The agency is on an unsustainable path right now, with an unrealistic schedule.
Which gets to the basic problem, for the last 4 years, NASA was held hostage by an academician.
I’m not sure what academics has to do with anything. If anything, the space policy power vacuum at the White House over the last four years allowed a smart and motivated person with little political experience to drive the bus, and his engineering expertise led to some overconfidence.
But I still think the caution expressed in the video about not taking any chances can be looked at in several ways. The program of record, with the evident miscostings and clear unaffordability in anywhere near the target schedule, as well as some serious technical worries, makes it a pretty chancey plan for the U.S. human space flight program. No, I don’t want to take a chance, but not taking a chance just isn’t an option anymore. Also, no one is arguing about delays. Relative to the baseline schedule, any option is going to entail serious delays.
The program of record, with the evident miscostings and clear unaffordability in anywhere near the target schedule, as well as some serious technical worries
Why are you defending Constellation here? The program was one of technical, management, political and financial MISCONDUCT. Criminal misconduct.
Why are you defending Constellation here? The program was one of technical, management, political and financial MISCONDUCT. Criminal misconduct.
Well, I didn’t think I was exactly defending it. But, as Mike Griffin used to repeatedly remind us, the program was explicitly endorsed by Congress in the NASA Authorization bill. This was, I’m sure, his way of saying “Hey, it’s not just me saying this!” So any criticisms of Constellation have to reflect on Congress as well.
As to criminal misconduct, I’m not aware of any illegalities here. As to any other kind of misconduct, in politics, one persons “policy” is another persons “misconduct”.
As to criminal misconduct, I’m not aware of any illegalities here.
The Horowitz revolving door was ethically questionable at the least.
The Horowitz revolving door was ethically questionable at the least.
Yes, that’s true. But it was ethically questionable after the fact, except to the extent that it implied some kind of prearragement and obligatory favoritism.
@sc220:
“Perhaps they were needed because the 4-segment fell far short of its supposed performance capabilities determined from ESAS.”
The change to 5-segment configuration came about during Phase 1 contract when it was found that the 4-segment could not loft the then current design of the CEV…
Oh well…
This video is not very good, and fails to make a strong point for anything. There is a shot of the Ares 1-X thrown in to imply that CxP is already building rockets. This is deceptive. One could easily show a series of Atlas and Delta launches, and throw water on that whole line of reasoning.
You could also show the current schedule compared to the one that came out of ESAS, and it would be obvious that you have a program in trouble.
The Fat Lady is singing.
All the last minute hand wringing by the defenders of the status quo will change nothing.
The reason for the coming death of Ares was based purely on “facts”. The Augustine Committee did the spade work, and found out what Mike Griffin publicly admitted was correct. That the current Constellation program would only work in NASA was given a $3 BILLION per year increase.
Which is not going to happen.
In other words, Ares 1/5 is not affordable, and by definition (after it is over) we will say it was not sustainable.
The sad part is that this was all basically predicted by the Stafford Commission, when they made “affordability” and “sustainability” in to their mantra.
The real question is what will replace the current strategy.
– Al
The change to 5-segment configuration came about during Phase 1 contract when it was found that the 4-segment could not loft the then current design of the CEV…
I thought it was a result of switching from SSME to J-2 for the upper stage when the former was determined to be too expensive.
The sad part is that this was all basically predicted by the Stafford Commission, when they made “affordability†and “sustainability†in to their mantra.
I think you mean Aldridge Commission. Stafford Commission was Bush’s father’s commission.
@Al Fansome:
“The real question is what will replace the current strategy.”
It will be Deep Space with commercial crew to LEO and:
– most effective bang for buck: option 7 (i.e. EELV, if they find out what to do with ATK workforce).
– most politically effective solution (the least expensive of below but risky development costs):
. option 6 (Ares Lite).
. option 7S (Shuttle derived)
http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378554main_01%20-%20Integrated%20Options_2009Aug12.ppt#478,29,Slide 29
http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378656main_04_-_Presentation4.ppt#257,2,Slide 2
@Rand Simberg:
My recollection, and I will admit I’ve been proven wrong before, is that the 4 segment SRB was not able to lift the “then” CEV. At that time a 5 segment option was explored which brought all kinds of other problems since now the vehicle was going real fast real low. Bear in mind that at that time there was no redesign of the propellant inside the SRB. Things have probably changed since then (2005-2006) as we all know…
FWIW.
Ares is a failed concept driven way beyond common sense by a horns down lunatic in total self denial “Griffin”. Driven to the point where it now threatens to up end the deep space goal. It was well know prior to the election the Liberals wanted to derail the Bush deep space plan and get back to the rudderless to go nowhere…”ISS science theme”. Griffin made it easy for them the panel did there bidding. I’m convinced its time to axe the Ares replace it with Atlas V or FALCON. Pursue a commercial based structure. However do not let the left kill the deep space driver. Abandon the ISS in 2015 and focus the funding on commercial deep space development.
@Doug:
However much I (and I am sure others as well) enjoy your support of commercial space, it’d be way more constructive if you were to refrain from the political nonsense such as below since it is this current WH that is trying to promote commercial space, a very capitalist stand, is it not? Please make an effort.
“It was well know prior to the election the Liberals wanted to derail the Bush deep space plan and get back to the rudderless to go nowhere…â€
“However do not let the left kill the deep space driver.”
Liberals wanted to derail the Bush deep space plan
I guess Bush himself beat the “liberals” to it.
Liberals wanted to derail the Bush deep space plan
Don’t know much history eah ? Take your political blinders off and maybe you will be able to “see” some of reality.
The “blame” for the US space program being in the groove/rut it is in has many parents reaching back to LBJ& Nixon not to mention all the excessively gutless Congresses along the way. Many are the guilty parties and few are ever noted in public. Time to do your homework there junior. Or maybe you’ll just ask for new talking points from your handlers which is the path to insanity.
Time to choose.
And all you naysayers are gonna be real surprised as the path forward unfolds going forward. Stay tuned.
The Very Proper Gander
If I were an American Taxpayer I would be immensely proud of the Committee on Human Spaceflight. Not that any of the Panel were paid anything more than expenses. Their task was… IS monumental and their public analysis and decision making: even handed. Short of letting an independent body, like Roskosmos, take over! Joking aside the one thing that really impressed me, as an external observer of the process; luckily able to watch most of the proceedings and read much of the documentation: was the allowance of submissions from both ESA and Roskosmos to the process. Only a year earlier such submissions would have been unthinkable; as America went its own way with a solitary Vision.
From everything I have seen the panel are all clearly space enthusiasts and despite all having personal/ private agendas, as do we all, have put these aside and comported themselves impeccably. At great service to your Nation. The above none too subtle piece of propaganda, however, does them a disservice and by extension the vested interests that no doubt funded it. It reeks of the “status quo”. Not at all in keeping with a country dedicated to permanent revolution.
Whilst I have every confidence that the experts and advisors that President Obama has enlisted to support him in these troubled times will transform reasoned ‘options’ into solid ‘recommendations’. Once Congress gets hold of them…
“An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self sustained.”
Mahatma Gandhi (1927)
Or as James Thurber so wisely said:
“Moral: Anybody who you or your wife thinks is going to overthrow the government by violence must be driven out of the country.”
I have no problem with ‘saving’ (as it were) the Ares I…as long as they agree to do it on a fixed price contract with milestones to receive payments. You know, the kind of contract SpaceX and Orbital have.
Oh, wait. I forgot. We can’t have a level playing field.
Never mind.
The Augustine commission did a terrible job of cost comparisons and timelines. They lumped NASA’s Sidemount-HLV in with DIRECT. They’re totally different concepts with different cost and different timelines of development. Then they financially burdened both concepts with a 5 year shuttle extension which they didn’t place on the Ares 1 and Ares V scenario. And then they ignored the capability of the Sidemount and DIRECT to place humans into LEO and allied them with a commercial manned option which does not currently exist. Why?
If the Augustine commission really didn’t want to review the Sidemount and DIRECT concepts, they just just should have said so!