Comments on: Why Not Just Fund the Program of Record? http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/12/why-not-just-fund-the-program-of-record/ Random Musings from the Warped Minds of Jonathan Goff, Ken Murphy, John Hare, and Kirk Sorensen Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:26:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Aleksey Matyushev http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/12/why-not-just-fund-the-program-of-record/comment-page-1/#comment-8723 Aleksey Matyushev Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:28:33 +0000 http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1344#comment-8723 Sorry it took me so long to publish it (I haven’t checked a lot of the site for a while). But here is a link of the posted article on our website…http://openae.org/business-news/65-news-why-not-fund-the-program-of-record . It will remain on our front page for a little while and then categorized under news on our website. Thanks for letting me publish it! There is also a couple more articles that with your permission I want to publish as well (all with the link back of course!) All the best, Aleksey Sorry it took me so long to publish it (I haven’t checked a lot of the site for a while). But here is a link of the posted article on our website…http://openae.org/business-news/65-news-why-not-fund-the-program-of-record .

It will remain on our front page for a little while and then categorized under news on our website. Thanks for letting me publish it!

There is also a couple more articles that with your permission I want to publish as well (all with the link back of course!)

All the best,
Aleksey

]]> By: Jonathan Goff http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/12/why-not-just-fund-the-program-of-record/comment-page-1/#comment-7536 Jonathan Goff Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:37:21 +0000 http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1344#comment-7536 Aleksey, That would be fine. Just make sure you link back to here. I'll take free advertising wherever I can get it. :-) ~Jon Aleksey,
That would be fine. Just make sure you link back to here. I’ll take free advertising wherever I can get it. :-)

~Jon

]]> By: Aleksey Matyushev http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/12/why-not-just-fund-the-program-of-record/comment-page-1/#comment-7535 Aleksey Matyushev Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:58:28 +0000 http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1344#comment-7535 Really good article Jonathan. Although it was written before the presidents state of the union address, I think it speaks true even more right now as to the reasoning behind Obama's planned 2011 budget. I was wondering if I could repost the article on our website (http://openae.org). Let me know at aleksey@openae.org . I think it would be really cool to put it side by side Michael Mealling's article (http://rocketforge.org/?p=470) so I will ask him to. Really good article Jonathan. Although it was written before the presidents state of the union address, I think it speaks true even more right now as to the reasoning behind Obama’s planned 2011 budget.

I was wondering if I could repost the article on our website (http://openae.org). Let me know at aleksey@openae.org . I think it would be really cool to put it side by side Michael Mealling’s article (http://rocketforge.org/?p=470) so I will ask him to.

]]> By: Jonathan Goff http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/12/why-not-just-fund-the-program-of-record/comment-page-1/#comment-7201 Jonathan Goff Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:45:16 +0000 http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1344#comment-7201 Brett, Personally I think the value of a goal like that is overrated. In spite of having had a "summoning focal point" for over half a decade, it's not like NASA has actually gotten anywhere near the budget that they've needed to execute on a lunar mission. Ie, having a goal isn't actually achieving what you think it achieves. More importantly, having a goal and timelines has been making NASA ignore doing the technology development it's been putting off since Apollo, because they feel they have to take the lowest risk (but lowest payoff) approach in order to meet the deadline. Regarding your other point, sure, commercial space isn't going to do much in the way of exploration--the point of Flexible Path is to get commercial space to pick up the "boring stuff", so that NASA can actually focus on exploration. Right now the PoR would have NASA focusing on expensive earth-to-orbit transportation for most of the next decade and a half, and only start working on exploration stuff 15-20 years down the road (if the program didn't get canceled outright). ~Jon Brett,
Personally I think the value of a goal like that is overrated. In spite of having had a “summoning focal point” for over half a decade, it’s not like NASA has actually gotten anywhere near the budget that they’ve needed to execute on a lunar mission. Ie, having a goal isn’t actually achieving what you think it achieves. More importantly, having a goal and timelines has been making NASA ignore doing the technology development it’s been putting off since Apollo, because they feel they have to take the lowest risk (but lowest payoff) approach in order to meet the deadline.

Regarding your other point, sure, commercial space isn’t going to do much in the way of exploration–the point of Flexible Path is to get commercial space to pick up the “boring stuff”, so that NASA can actually focus on exploration. Right now the PoR would have NASA focusing on expensive earth-to-orbit transportation for most of the next decade and a half, and only start working on exploration stuff 15-20 years down the road (if the program didn’t get canceled outright).

~Jon

]]> By: Brett Thomason http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/12/why-not-just-fund-the-program-of-record/comment-page-1/#comment-7199 Brett Thomason Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:14:13 +0000 http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1344#comment-7199 Aremt you going to address the comment from that Mark fellow? How "Flexible Path" might translate really into going nowhere (esp regarding a summoning focal point in the public's imagination & support for large, bold, world leading and inspiring exploratiom --which is a main, unwritten purpose of nasa-- a function that comnmercial space is NOT ready for). Aremt you going to address the comment from that Mark fellow? How “Flexible Path” might translate really into going nowhere (esp regarding a summoning focal point in the public’s imagination & support for large, bold, world leading and inspiring exploratiom –which is a main, unwritten purpose of nasa– a function that comnmercial space is NOT ready for).

]]> By: Matthew Stibbe (Golf Hotel Whiskey blog) http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/12/why-not-just-fund-the-program-of-record/comment-page-1/#comment-7136 Matthew Stibbe (Golf Hotel Whiskey blog) Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:57:43 +0000 http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1344#comment-7136 How did we get here? Is this another case of an American administration setting lofty goals for NASA without really thinking through the cost of it? Or is it the case that NASA can't manage their way out of a wet paper bag? I accept that space flight is really hard and I am a big space enthusiast who wants to see more of it and better missions; but shouldn't some of this debate start with a bit of thinking about what went wrong before so that we can avoid the same mistakes in the future. Also, I'm genuinely interested to know what you guys think about this - you're obviously very well-informed about the technology and programme options. - Matthew How did we get here? Is this another case of an American administration setting lofty goals for NASA without really thinking through the cost of it? Or is it the case that NASA can’t manage their way out of a wet paper bag? I accept that space flight is really hard and I am a big space enthusiast who wants to see more of it and better missions; but shouldn’t some of this debate start with a bit of thinking about what went wrong before so that we can avoid the same mistakes in the future. Also, I’m genuinely interested to know what you guys think about this – you’re obviously very well-informed about the technology and programme options. – Matthew

]]> By: NASA Prepping Plans For Flexible Path To Mars | JetLib News http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/12/why-not-just-fund-the-program-of-record/comment-page-1/#comment-7135 NASA Prepping Plans For Flexible Path To Mars | JetLib News Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:07:47 +0000 http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1344#comment-7135 [...] which many expect will be part of the soon-to-be-announced reboot of NASA’s future plans. NASA’s prior architecture spends much of its budget on creating two in-house rockets, the Ares I and V, and would yield no [...] [...] which many expect will be part of the soon-to-be-announced reboot of NASA’s future plans. NASA’s prior architecture spends much of its budget on creating two in-house rockets, the Ares I and V, and would yield no [...]

]]> By: Trent Waddington http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/12/why-not-just-fund-the-program-of-record/comment-page-1/#comment-6765 Trent Waddington Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:32:24 +0000 http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1344#comment-6765 Jon, Please do, and while you're there can you ask him why the committee spent so long working out what NASA could do with a budget double the size of the budget they already weren't getting? I can't help but feel that if they had stuck to the original directive - investigate programs possible within the current budget profile - that they would have come up with something like your suggestion. Jon,

Please do, and while you’re there can you ask him why the committee spent so long working out what NASA could do with a budget double the size of the budget they already weren’t getting?

I can’t help but feel that if they had stuck to the original directive – investigate programs possible within the current budget profile – that they would have come up with something like your suggestion.

]]> By: Martijn Meijering http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/12/why-not-just-fund-the-program-of-record/comment-page-1/#comment-6762 Martijn Meijering Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:05:03 +0000 http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1344#comment-6762 <i>To go anywhere other than lunar orbit (including L2) requires the development of a near-zero boil-off cryogenic stage (as the report says).. or a much heavier launch vehicle.. or a cis-lunar depot architecture.</i> Likely true, but the lander can double as a depot. If you make it noncryogenic (MMH/NTO or kerosene/peroxide or methanol/peroxide) you don't even need to put cryogenic propellant transfer on the critical path. All that can be done with existing technology and likely for less money than even Jon's enlightened schemes and do so with comparable IMLEOs. Throw in SEP and you would likely end up being more efficient. And of course nothing would stop you from upgrading to cryogenics. Doing the Flexible Path this way would require EELV Phase 1, which is a good idea anyway given the mass of Orion and the benefits of consolidating EELV upper stages. It would use the smallest and cheapest possible HLV (EELV Phase 1), one that can reach back to current payloads levels, scale up to 2-4 moon missions a year (i.e. much more than is affordable) and the simplest possible depot, one that is noncryogenic and combined with a lander. This can give us the moon and together with small SEP tugs (current technology) Phobos, Deimos and perhaps Ceres. It would also give us most of the benefits propellant depots offer to commercial development of space as Jon describes so eloquently on his blog. The Flexible Path is an excellent strategy, although as formulated by the Augustine Commission it needs more work. To go anywhere other than lunar orbit (including L2) requires the development of a near-zero boil-off cryogenic stage (as the report says).. or a much heavier launch vehicle.. or a cis-lunar depot architecture.

Likely true, but the lander can double as a depot. If you make it noncryogenic (MMH/NTO or kerosene/peroxide or methanol/peroxide) you don’t even need to put cryogenic propellant transfer on the critical path. All that can be done with existing technology and likely for less money than even Jon’s enlightened schemes and do so with comparable IMLEOs. Throw in SEP and you would likely end up being more efficient. And of course nothing would stop you from upgrading to cryogenics.

Doing the Flexible Path this way would require EELV Phase 1, which is a good idea anyway given the mass of Orion and the benefits of consolidating EELV upper stages. It would use the smallest and cheapest possible HLV (EELV Phase 1), one that can reach back to current payloads levels, scale up to 2-4 moon missions a year (i.e. much more than is affordable) and the simplest possible depot, one that is noncryogenic and combined with a lander. This can give us the moon and together with small SEP tugs (current technology) Phobos, Deimos and perhaps Ceres. It would also give us most of the benefits propellant depots offer to commercial development of space as Jon describes so eloquently on his blog.

The Flexible Path is an excellent strategy, although as formulated by the Augustine Commission it needs more work.

]]> By: Jonathan Goff http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/12/why-not-just-fund-the-program-of-record/comment-page-1/#comment-6761 Jonathan Goff Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:27:17 +0000 http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1344#comment-6761 Steve, Did you ever get a chance to read the AIAA paper I did with my Boeing, ULA, and U of Memphis friends last year? I was working on it when we were up in the Bay Area, but it didn't come together till much later in the game than that. Here's a link to a copy ULA put up on their website: http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/PropellantDepots2009.pdf Steve,
Did you ever get a chance to read the AIAA paper I did with my Boeing, ULA, and U of Memphis friends last year? I was working on it when we were up in the Bay Area, but it didn’t come together till much later in the game than that. Here’s a link to a copy ULA put up on their website: http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/PropellantDepots2009.pdf

]]>