A concern expressed by this blog was that the Norman Augustine led review, all 90-odd days of it, would simply be too short to achieve anything and that the options this US Review of human spaceflight plans committee would come up with would just lead to another study
Fortunately it would seem, according to sources brave enough to talk to Hyperbola, that Bolden will have a "forward plan" very soon after Augustine has briefed the US Senate and House of Representatives, dates for which are being organised now
This will follow the committee chairman's 14 August debrief to NASA administrator Charles Bolden and John Holdren, Office of Science and Technology Policy director - whose office kicked off the review on behalf of president Barack Obama's administration
The rapid timing for all this is apparently because political wheels are to be set in motion as regards the Congressional budgetary process. So it is nice to know everything but the engineering is driving the schedule
But fear not Hyperbola readers because this NASA announcement yesterday indicated that all would be revealed sooner than you think
The Aug. 12 meeting will be held from 1 to 5 p.m. EDT at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center Amphitheater, located at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW in Washington. The agenda is:
1:00 to 5:00 p.m. Committee public deliberations:
Discussion of final options
Discussion of final report
Discussion of close-out activities
Hyperbola understands that all the Augustine materials will be made public on 12 August, and perhaps there won't even be set of secret appendices...
Coming back to this forward plan of Bolden's, some people have been getting quite excited about what Xcor founder and chief executive Jeff Greason's (pronounced Grey-son) propellant depot presentation means for the options that Augustine's committee could choose
Instead some of the Augustine report's options are likely to be incorporated into broad themes thought by some to be influencing the Bolden forward plan and they are, a strong international element, missions that go beyond low Earth orbit, perhaps to L1, a commercial element and something that fits within the NASA budget
At the first Augustine panel public meeting's press conference the former Lockheed Martin chief executive and review committee chair said he was interested in "marginal costs and marginal benefits"
NASA tells Hyperbola that this was a reference to the budget. This blog disputed this but they insisted and so what can be inferred from this marginal cost or benefit approach for the budget is essentially, what likelihood is there of one option costing more than another in every sense
To once again look into the crystal ball the question that comes to this blog's mind is which of the known alternatives that could be considered for the Augustine report's options present more risk for budget and schedule for these themes than others?
Which has more risk, Commercial Orbital Transportation Services' (COTS) vehicles, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV), an altered Ares/Orion or Shuttle derived Heavy Lift Vehicle side-mount? Or the orbiter?
For this reason propellant depots are disliked, it is an entirely new spacecraft with no heritage and requires a radically different architecture. And what would launch it? The ULA Delta IV or the yet to fly SpaceX Falcon 9 heavy come to mind. Anyway the word on the street is that NASA personnel are not giving the depot idea the thumbs up to anyone. Just ask any contractor pushing that, and this blog is referring to companies with larger profit and loss accounts than Xcor
For some Bolden's forward plan will probably be Shuttle extension, with HLV over lap and a crew transport developed from COTS or EELV, while others will prefer a reformed Ares/Orion, HLV combination
While this blog thinks the options are quite self evident (Flame Trench also named some of the more obvious options such as ISS extension) the real mystery now is what will that Bolden forward plan say? Any answers Charlie?
on August 5, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply
--
on several space/science forums and blogs I've read that the HSF Commission "should" propose to build some "orbiting gas station" since they believe that it's a good solution to save money (and save the Constellation program...)
--
well, if true, this is the best evidence that they haven't NEVER read the HSF Facebook wall nor the suggestions I've linked on it and sent them via email, where I explain IN DETAILS why it isn't a good idea now, and how/when (and at which conditions) it could become a reality:
--
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/045suggestions09.html
--
they not even CALCULATED the COSTS of an orbital-refuel-based Constellation, so, they seem (really!) believe that it could be "CHEAP" !!!
--
I've had in mind to write a further article about this argument to better explain WHY it's an hoax-project, but I haven't done it, since I did not like to talk, if no one listen... :|
--
maybe... I can write the new article about the (crazy) orbital refuel "idea" only if a space blog (maybe, your blog) would host my post to give enough visibility also to the orbital refuel's critics...
--
ps - Engedget (that talks about this argument) has CENSORED my comment like this... another is Direct-like LOBBY born????? :(
--
on August 5, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply
.
Bolden's "HLV over lap and a crew transport developed from COTS" ???
it's my "ESAS + COTS + AresX moon missions" architecture proposed over TWO years ago!
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/029aresX.html
.
on August 5, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply
--
from the HSF Twitter page [ http://twitter.com/NASA_HSF ] "Dr. Chiao, asking about human rating and Ariane 5"
--
just a dejavu, for me... I've proposed to launch the orbital/ISS version of the Orion with an Ariane-5 on my website (and on several space forum and blogs) over THREE YEARS AGO:
--
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/010arianecev.html
--
also, in the same weeks, a source from ESA, said (and I've reported on some forums) that, man-rate the Ariane-5, should cost around 1.6 billion euro (about $2 Bn) that's very much CHEAPER than develop the ($35 Bn) Ares-1
--
on August 5, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply
My personal interpretation of last week's committee meeting is different than yours.
It was not just Jeff Greason that strongly recommended in-space propellant servicing; the whole Beyond LEO subcommittee did. They strongly recommended that an aggressive approach be taken to bring that about; eg. starting with a targeted technology risk reduction effort. And as was explained by members of the subcommittee, we can go places without in-space propellant servicing - but never to stay; and not staying is the habit we have to break.
The other misconception you're propagating is that this requires a big new government program, called Government Owned, Designed, Built, and Operated Fuel Depot. That is not what is being advocated (or, what will work in the long-run). Fuel is a commodity. And government should not own, design, build, and operate gas stations - no matter where those gas stations are located.
Here's a realistic scenario of what actions could be taken on this subject in the near future:
1. Start a NASA propellant depot/servicing technical risk reduction initiative; The questions to be asked: What would need to be included – and in what approximate order? E.g, assuming that even LOX needs some additional work (I do); followed by LH2. What about other propellants? Methane? Is there a consensus that storables don’t need any technical risk reduction at all? The new suborbital vehicles can get 4 min of microgravity and will fly often; can they be of use in risk-reduction efforts?
(At the annual AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference - which happens to be underway this week - the experts are informally discussing what sort of technical risk-reduction efforts are necessary should advanced technology development be re-invigorated again at NASA. It's a very opportune time for them to do that, considering not just the Augustine Subcommittee's recommendation that in-flight propellant servicing be treated 'aggressively', but the wholesale review of U.S. space policy, as well as hoped-for NASA reform under its new leaders.)
2. Development and Demonstrations – COTS-like joint NASA/industry development, which includes some demos. Would be minimum two companies, milestone-based payments by NASA to the selectees, etc.
3. Finding a way to support/encourage private financing of such a new type of venture as a depot-like facility. E.g, Possible loan guarantees for companies willing to build something. NASA would need Congressional authority for this; but, there are precedents. The two best precedents so far are: a. The $50B loan guarantee program DOE has for alternative energy; and, b. the (unused) DOD loan guarantee authority for a reusable space tug.
4. Develop a strategy on how NASA, and possibly DOD, would buy the propellant service for its own missions, with at least the initial intent of serving as a launch customers. Again, this is in the COTS mode; where after the initial COTS joint NASA/industry development, NASA awarded an IDIQ contract (Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity) to two companies to actually purchase the service. Would that work with a commodity like propellant, or do we have to think of something different?)
The contractors (that's plural, deliberately) would then be free, and encouraged, to go and further develop the market; looking for other customers, first the low-hanging fruit, and gradually expanding the market, lifting all boats.
This sort of example plan is the sort of thing we can do; and it is NOT another big government-owned space station that just happens to be gas tanks. It is leveraging what NASA should do best - technology risk reduction for industry; then jointly work on the next phase jointly with industry on true development/demonstrations. It then gets down to enabling real business; by giving companies a real-world first customer(s), while at the same time providing an incentive (via something like loan guarantees) to mitigate the risk of potential financiers in this radically-new - but, understandable - venture.
Thoughts?
on August 5, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply
Would be surprised if there was any news before Ares 1-X launches. Ares 1-X will probably succeed because it doesn't do much. It'll probably have less oscillation than predicted. Congress will say since the program is doing so well, some of its money would be better spent refinancing fish tanks. That's the forward plan.
on August 5, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply
Rob,
Here's a comment by Clark Lindsey on some of what you had to say.
Rob Coppinger implies that the fuel depot proposals is just Jeff Greason's idea. In fact, the concept has been promoted for sometime by lots of people, including champions within Boeing and ULA, e.g. Boeing made it the essential part of its "Dry Launch" proposal to the Admiral Steidel led studies just after the VSE was announced. (Find background info on fuel depots here.)
P.S. If by "CENSORED" Gaetano Romano means that the particular site he mentions has removed or blocked his postings, I wouldn't doubt it. A number of other space-related websites have done so. Especially when he has done such things as refer to himself as a "GENIUS" and that NASA has stolen ideas from him. He also claims Google stole the idea of the Lunar X-Prize from him.
on August 5, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply
I did not imply that fuel depots were entirely Jeff's idea. That's ludicrous. They are entirely Jon Goff's and everybody knows it. Just kidding! Fuel depots may have been promoted by many people within and without industry but it doesn't mean its a good idea. I'll blog on this at a later date becauase it relates to something I don't want to reveal now.
I'm all for live and let live with Mr Romano.
on August 5, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply
Not today. Too busy here at the 45th Joint Propulsion Conference.
on August 6, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply
"I'm all for live"
thanks Rob
@Rick Boozer
probably it's best if readers might judge (without your "help") about the """Google""" Lunar X Prize, just reading this article:
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html
.
on August 6, 2009 4:50 AM | Reply
It is always fun to guess these things. When all the dust settles:
1] US involvement with ISS continues forever and beyond
2] Shuttle continues at low rate together with the Internationals
3] Orion continues
4] Everything else is on “pay-go”: schedule is the variable. Shuttle derived Heavy Lift aimed at Mars; a little bit of Moon lip service, but not as much as an outpost and lots of astronauts orbiting things without touching them.
on August 10, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply
--
Do you want see the mankind go to Mars soon?
--
Do you REALLY want this?
--
Well, my proposal is the ONLY rational way to go Mars soon and compatibly with our technology, the space agencies budgets and the funds that our governments can give with today's economic crisis.
--
You can read it here: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/047gotomars.html
--
So, if you want to see a manned Mars mission in your lifetime, you should talk about and STRONGLY SUPPORT my proposal about Mars (reviewing or publishing it, free of charge, on your website or blog) hoping the Augustine Commission will consider and propose it in its final report for the White House.
--
I you really want support my proposal for Mars you have two options:
--
a) review it (in brief) in a post with your name and your opinion about it, just putting a LINK to my article, or...
--
b) republish the full article below (but only THIS article and NOT other articles of my blog) with my name (as guest blogger) and a LINK to this blog and to this article, adding your opinions only at its end.
--
If the second option is your choice, you are not allowed to modify the text of the article in no way, also, you should put a copyright notice at the end of the article to show that it always is/will be my property.
--
Of course, if you'll republish this article, you can't resell it to others.
--
Any suggestion from you or spelling correction of my article is welcome.
--
If we will succeed and if this plan adopted you could say (someday) to have been part of the "team" that led the man on planet Mars!!!
--
on August 12, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply
It seems to me that Ares I is indeed very dead based on the Committee's latest information, so I thing you got your information wrong Rob.
~El
on August 19, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply
Gaetano is always good for some light relief. Some of his ideas are even quite good, if somewhat sparsely presented.
It's good to see that Bolden has an alternative - if neccessarily vague - plan based on budgetary problems. But with Shuttle Funding out the door there should be more than enough money to begin start-up on "DIRECT 4.0/NASA MS Plan #1003 and counting" without a budget increase if they resist temptation. Time to actually use ISS as both a lab and a launch base to the moon and planets - and Lagrange Points - and a test site for equipment such a VASIMR etc. They can do that without a budget increase. But if Obama skims off funds...