Augustine Commission Report released
- Thread starter Squiggy
- Start date
Thanks, Squiggy!
The Bottom Line:
9.7 CONCLUDING SUMMARY
NASA is the most accomplished space organization in the
world. Its human spaceflight activities are nonetheless at
a tipping point, primarily due to a mismatch of goals and
resources. Either additional funds need to be made available
or a far more modest program involving little or no
exploration needs to be adopted. Various options can be
identified that offer exciting and worthwhile opportunities
for the human exploration of space if appropriate funds can
be made available. Such funds can be considerably leveraged
by having NASA attack its overhead costs and change
some of its traditional ways of conducting its affairs—and
by giving its management the authority to bring about such
changes. The American public can take pride in NASA’s
past accomplishments; the opportunity now exists to provide
for the future human spaceflight program worthy of a
great nation.
9.7 CONCLUDING SUMMARY
NASA is the most accomplished space organization in the
world. Its human spaceflight activities are nonetheless at
a tipping point, primarily due to a mismatch of goals and
resources. Either additional funds need to be made available
or a far more modest program involving little or no
exploration needs to be adopted. Various options can be
identified that offer exciting and worthwhile opportunities
for the human exploration of space if appropriate funds can
be made available. Such funds can be considerably leveraged
by having NASA attack its overhead costs and change
some of its traditional ways of conducting its affairs—and
by giving its management the authority to bring about such
changes. The American public can take pride in NASA’s
past accomplishments; the opportunity now exists to provide
for the future human spaceflight program worthy of a
great nation.
Whatever path they choose, the consequences for the near future will be enormous. Things are going to change, but that's necessary.
I was pleasantly surprised by the emphasis the committee places on the importance of international cooperation and how the ISS can help keep it at the current level. Ideally, the future of spaceflight is an international one. I don't see the point in a handful of space agencies all trying to achieve the same things while they could also build on each other's achievements.
My preferences? Keeping the ISS in orbit until at least 2020, keep the shuttles (or a shuttle-derived vehicle) flying - at a rate of one or two flights per year - to make sure the station can be fully utilised and proper crews can be maintained. Developing the Constellation program with a focus on the Moon and Mars (no need for the Orion capsules to also fly to the ISS apart from test flights). What we have now (Shuttles or derivatives, Soyuz, Progress, ATV, HTV) can keep flying to the ISS, while the new hardware (Ares launchers, Orion capsules, Altair landers, fuel depot at Lagrange points) is developed for new goals.
Ah, whatever happens, it could be very exciting.
I was pleasantly surprised by the emphasis the committee places on the importance of international cooperation and how the ISS can help keep it at the current level. Ideally, the future of spaceflight is an international one. I don't see the point in a handful of space agencies all trying to achieve the same things while they could also build on each other's achievements.
My preferences? Keeping the ISS in orbit until at least 2020, keep the shuttles (or a shuttle-derived vehicle) flying - at a rate of one or two flights per year - to make sure the station can be fully utilised and proper crews can be maintained. Developing the Constellation program with a focus on the Moon and Mars (no need for the Orion capsules to also fly to the ISS apart from test flights). What we have now (Shuttles or derivatives, Soyuz, Progress, ATV, HTV) can keep flying to the ISS, while the new hardware (Ares launchers, Orion capsules, Altair landers, fuel depot at Lagrange points) is developed for new goals.
Ah, whatever happens, it could be very exciting.
NASA budget for 2010: $18.69 Billion
GM Bailout: $50+ Billion
Bank Bailout: $700+ Billion
GM Bailout: $50+ Billion
Bank Bailout: $700+ Billion
Why would you want to keep the shuttles flying? They haven't proven to be a viable alternative to standard rockets of the Apollo era and earlier; they're expensive, problematic, and now every launch has to be followed up with a strict inspection of the leading edge of the wings. When the PR for the shuttle was in full swing, we were told that several shuttle launches each month would be the norm. The Soyuz, as old as it is, has (IMHO) proven to be more durable and useful than the shuttle.
Because their cargo capacity is necessary to make full use of the ISS. Progress and Soyuz, while very reliable, are simply not large enough. I specifically refer to cargo such as science racks and other heavy equipment for the ISS laboratories. The other option for NASA is to purchase Russian, European or Japanese ships, or leave it to yet unproven commercial launchers. One or two shuttle flights a year would go a very long way in resolving the issue and, in my opinion, it's the easiest solution.
True, the shuttles were always regarded as a workhorse; however, the cost of upkeep and launches keeps increasing, which necessitates they be phased out. I wouldn't write off "unproven commercial" launchers. Innovation always comes from private interest rather than any Government.
Workhorse? I think that's too kind given the launch rate. How about "heavy lift to LEO" and call it good.
In some ways, this discussion has come a really elegant full circle: the problem with the shuttle, and with keeping it on, is that it isn't capable of providing the reliable, frequent and cheap access to LEO that was its mandate because the development budget was cut.
And the Augustine report is effectively saying that trying to go ahead with Ares/Orion/Constellation on current budgets would repeat the same mistake.
It's a very basic point across any big project: doing something on 80% of the requested budget might seem cheaper and more efficient, but it can often mean you're actually wasting the money you do spend, as the result isn't up fit for purpose.
And the Augustine report is effectively saying that trying to go ahead with Ares/Orion/Constellation on current budgets would repeat the same mistake.
It's a very basic point across any big project: doing something on 80% of the requested budget might seem cheaper and more efficient, but it can often mean you're actually wasting the money you do spend, as the result isn't up fit for purpose.
Last edited:
Do launch costs of the shuttle keep increasing or are they at a steady high level? Whatever the cause, it is a serious concern. Add to that the age of the shuttles with the increasing risk of some sort of failure along the line and you have a very good point of wanting to phase them out. I just wonder if it's absolutely necessary to do so by the end of next year. Why not spread the costs of one or two launches over a whole fiscal year, rather than budgeting for five or six launches per year? I'd prefer that over not having any launch capability (I doubt any commercial launchers will be available by 2011).
To me personally, the commercial launchers seem too unreliable. Not in their performance (although they have yet to prove themselves), but whether the companies building them are able to keep up a rate of construction and launches that meets the needs of the ISS. There is no answer to that yet. At the same time there is a ship that has proven that it can do the job, and with a significantly larger cargo capacity than any commercial launcher: the space shuttle.
I'm just trying to balance a bunch of pro and cons, and I suffer from a lack of objectivity
There's fixed costs involved in maintaining the facilities and skilled staff needed to launch the shuttle, whether you put up one a year or 20 (within limits, of course. Obviously, beyond a certain point you have to have more staff and facilities to accomodate more launches). So eight launches over three years could well cost more than twelve over two.
Part of the problem withthe shuttle, economically, is that it was built on the assumption of spreading that fixed cost over 30 or more launches a year. In reality, it peaked at about 10, and with the extra launch constraints introduced after the accidents, has averaged maybe five or six in recent years.
Ultimately though, the decision on when to phase out the Shuttle is down to budget: if the money is being spent on keeping the Shuttle running, then there isn't enough available to get Ares etc out of first gear (and Augustine says that even then, there won't be enough to get it beyond second).
Not being an American citizen, but having a highly emotional stake in things, I'd like to see the NASA budget boosted considerably as well. I don't like seeing the kind of "zero-sum" games that have been played the last few years, and would like to see it remedied.
Of course, I'd also like to see my own country get its own shuttle-like fleet of reusable craft and start doing our own stuff, in cooperation and competition with the USA.
I'm an impractical dreamer, true...
Of course, I'd also like to see my own country get its own shuttle-like fleet of reusable craft and start doing our own stuff, in cooperation and competition with the USA.
I'm an impractical dreamer, true...
I would only wish an american "shuttle-like" fleet on our worst enemies.
The shuttle, while an amazing feat of engineering, is a failure at most of it's goals. It does not have a high flight rate, it's expensive to fly, and a safety hazard to it's crew. Trying to keep the shuttle flying is absorbing too much of NASA's budget. Money that could better be spent using existing launchers for the same jobs.
The shuttle, while an amazing feat of engineering, is a failure at most of it's goals. It does not have a high flight rate, it's expensive to fly, and a safety hazard to it's crew. Trying to keep the shuttle flying is absorbing too much of NASA's budget. Money that could better be spent using existing launchers for the same jobs.
Seems a bit rosy to be honest. The private space industry is barely catching up to what NASA,The French and the Russians have been doing for a long time.
I doubt they can took over and launch rockets while still making a profit and being cheap in the near term. What that would be cool i doubt it.
I doubt they can took over and launch rockets while still making a profit and being cheap in the near term. What that would be cool i doubt it.
But we don't need it anymore. It's built.
Not yet. We won't need it for construction (hopefully) after 2010, but for significant cargo and spare part transport we do.
Erm. The Russians have ships capable for cargo transport, the last of which was the Progress M-67.
I think you're letting nostalgia and wishful thinking cloud your reasoning.
