Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

Bill White · 2004-05-28 14:16:31

It appears http://www.moontomars.org/news/docs.asp]all transcripts are here along with video.

Lots and lots of interesting reading.

Anyone know if these transcripts will ever get published in dead tree format?

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-01 15:17:17

Slowly poring over it, could take some time. Interesting reading indeed.

clark · 2004-06-04 08:44:38

June 10th, they release their findings. June 11th, we get to see for ourselves.

Remember, enjoy the ride... :laugh:

Bill White · 2004-06-04 09:03:10

June 10th, they release their findings. June 11th, we get to see for ourselves.
Remember, enjoy the ride... :laugh:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/ju … l]Official press release.

Bill White · 2004-06-07 12:09:55

http://www.space.com/news/commission_de … tml]Report delayed until next week.

Bill White · 2004-06-10 21:45:45

http://space.com/news/commission_report_040610.html]A leak to space.com?

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-11 07:27:48

Sounds pretty good, though "create a comission to create a comission" does sort of hit on the things I've been saying about Bush's initative.

The forthcoming report, "A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover", will also recommend the establishment of a so- called Space Exploration Steering Council reporting to the president. The last time that such a body reported to such a high level was the White House National Space Council during the first Bush administration, which was headed by Vice President Dan Quayle.

The management changes are good.

Bill, I presume you've read all the papers? I downloaded them all, but I have not had nary a chance to read them. If so, what's your ultimate take? What will the comission recommend? How much was SDV discussed?

clark · 2004-06-11 09:05:05

NASA centers be spun off as Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC). The Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., commonly misidentified as a NASA field center, is actually an FFRDC managed by the California Institute of Technology.

This will make it easier to close individual centers.

NASA allow the private industry "to assume the primary role of providing services to NASA, and most immediately in accessing low-Earth orbit."

EELV and super EELV, no SDV.

NASA and Congress work together to create three new organizations within the space agency: a technical advisory board, a independent cost estimating organization, and a research and technology organization that sponsors high risk technology development efforts.

Coordination of the various projects based on feasiblity, finciancal cost, and possible outcome.

Be interesting to see the rest.

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-15 07:21:35

From prelim reports, I'm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … 4.html]not impressed.

Edited By Josh Cryer on 1087305731

clark · 2004-06-16 10:08:22

The actual report:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.htm … 136]Report of the President's Commission on Implementation of United States: Space Exploration Policy A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover

clark · 2004-06-16 10:13:03

From the Executive Summary (need some time to review the full report)

NASA aggressively use its contractual authority to reach broadly into the commercial and nonprofit communities to bring the best ideas, technologies, and management tools into the accomplishment of exploration goals; and

Congress increase the potential for commercial opportunities related to the national space exploration vision by providing incentives for entrepreneurial investment in space, by creating significant monetary prizes for the accomplishment of space missions and/or technology developments and by assuring appropriate property rights for those who seek to develop space resources and infrastructure.

Wahoo! Prizes and property rights! Step right up and win yourself a piece of the stars.

Page 30 seems to indicate SDV as a neccessity (or at least a definite decision) and pointing to the lack of capability of EELV in getting the job done. There it is Bill.

BWhite · 2004-06-16 10:27:01

Assuring appropriate property rights? Okay, cool. Now lets try to do that without international consensus. That would be interesting to watch.

It is true that in the 1800s, the grant of western lands to the railroads helped spur the development of the American West. However, the American West was within Washington's right to give away.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-16 10:31:01

Assuring appropriate property rights? Okay, cool. Now lets try to do that without international consensus. That would be interesting to watch.

Land on the moon, claim it, start awarding contracts. Done. Somehow I suspect other nations would, however much whining they do in public, be looking to get a piece of the action once the US gets the ball rolling.

clark · 2004-06-16 10:33:31

Uh oh, "Junior" is talking.

We just need to be in the position to get there first. Remember, Land Rush was all about who could claim what, first.

Shhh. Don't tell Cindy, I don't think she will like these developments.

In the report, it talks about the prizes- they suggested a Billion dollar prize for getting humans to the moon and sustaining them there for a period of time... as an example, but perhaps as a suggestion too.

BWhite · 2004-06-16 10:37:13

Assuring appropriate property rights? Okay, cool. Now lets try to do that without international consensus. That would be interesting to watch.
Land on the moon, claim it, start awarding contracts. Done. Somehow I suspect other nations would, however much whining they do in public, be looking to get a piece of the action once the US gets the ball rolling.

Thats why the French and the Russians have agreed to launch Soyuz from Kouru.

Putin and Chirac have no intention (IMHO) of letting the space race be a one competitor event.

By the way, assume for sake of argument, the ESA and RSA find a suitable funding source. = IF = meaning its a thought experiment, dude. ;-)

Is there any reason to believe CEV will be capable of anything Kliper won't be capable of? And will CEV be cheaper to develop and launch than Kliper?

BWhite · 2004-06-16 10:41:38

In the report, it talks about the prizes- they suggested a Billion dollar prize for getting humans to the moon and sustaining them there for a period of time... as an example, but perhaps as a suggestion too.

Can we fly Ukrainian? Is SeaLaunch American? (Boeing is a partner after all.)

Man-rate the Zenit 3SL and launch Zenit-2 from the SeaLaunch platform and living on the Moon can perhaps be done easily for a billion dollars by the private sector.

Delta or Atlas? Not so sure.

= = =

The problem America may have with an emphasis on the private sector is that the Russians and Ukrainians are already competing with a public-provate partnership that has already lowered launch costs.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-16 10:46:59

Thats why the French and the Russians have agreed to launch Soyuz from Kouru.

Very likely, yes. And If they believe we're serious they'll do what they can to at least be on par.

Realising that property rights are an important factor to establish is the first step toward getting there first to claim them for ourselves. Hopefully, a trend will develop.

Is there any reason to believe CEV will be capable of anything Kliper won't be capable of? And will CEV be cheaper to develop and launch than Kliper?

Not that I'm aware of. But assuming we have leaders inclined to do so, we can get there first with variations of existing hardware. If the motivation is there, we can establish dominance in space with relative ease. So far I'm not terribly impressed with the developing US space policy, but it's a start in the right direction.

BWhite · 2004-06-16 12:00:57

A quote from pages 30: (If anyone knows how to copy and paste from pdf, let me know!)

First they note the shuttle can carry 55,000 pounds to LEO; Saturn V could carry 250,000 pounds to LEO; and heavy lift EELV (DeltaIVH?) can lift 50,000 pounds to LEO. Then they say:

The missions to be undertaken as part of the exploration vision will likely require a lift capability beyond todays Space Shuttle and EELVs.

Sounds like either SDV or a clean sheet heavy lifter.

= = =

Page 29 - - Shuttle C gets a picture. Mean anything?

Rxke · 2004-06-16 12:31:38

Copy/paste: at the top of the page, select the "T" with dotted rectangular next to it to select, then do the familiar C/P stuff. Doesn't always (more like:never...) work 100%, some text-makeup codes is not converted etc.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-16 12:38:35

A quote from pages 30: (If anyone knows how to copy and paste from pdf, let me know!)

Acrobat Writer has a setting for preventing cut and paste operations. Too many people use it, just to be difficult.

clark · 2004-06-16 13:36:32

CEV will more than likely have a 4 person maximum capacity- Klipper is aimed at 6.

The major difference is that the Klipper ain't going no further than LEO. CEV will take us to the Moon.

If they go clean sheet, look for a private venture to supply it. I doubt this route, as SDV retains an exscuse to maintain Shuttle infrastructure and allows for some horse trading for future votes.

NASA is not going to look the same in 5 years with the change over to a JPL model.

I would imagine any NASA prizes (which will need Congressional approval) will require a "Made in the USA" label. Perhaps there might be a certain amount of "fudge" factor on the launch architecture if the services are bought using private funds (meaning you don't have to build the launch rockets privately).

BWhite · 2004-06-16 13:46:46

Hmmm. . .

If Bechtel or Kimball, Brown and Root set up a wholly owned subsidiary in Kiev or Moscow and Zenit-2 #427 is allocated to that subsidiary which happens to be a US taxpayer entity. . .

Or if KBR leases a Kouru launch pad and that same subsidiary has possession of the R-7 production line for 6 months and thereby "makes" a few Soyuz. . .

Is that "made in America" ??

Ain't globalization grand?

= = =

Why can't a Kliper capsule go to the Moon?

On orbit rendevouz with a lunar lander and service module for propulsion and there you go.

One Delta IVH launch won't be enough to get CEV to the Moon either.

clark · 2004-06-16 13:54:40

Ain't globalization grand?

Yeah, no sweat shops in our back yard... oh wait.

Why can't a Kliper capsule go to the Moon?

Why can't the Shuttle? Kliper is just a bigger version of the Soyuz, I don't think it is being designed for the stresses that moon-return require.

On orbit rendevouz with a lunar lander and service module for propulsion and there you go.

LOL! Sure. We're budgeting something like 40 billion for the lander- almost twice as much as the CEV itself. And we've had the experience before (okay, 30 years ago we did).

One Delta IVH launch won't be enough to get CEV to the Moon either.

Ah, but several will. Throw in a nuclear electric/whatever tug and then tell me what we can and cannot do.

BWhite · 2004-06-17 08:06:43

CEV and Delta IVH or Atlas are not the same thing. Why not put CEV on a Russian booster?

After all, if a Kliper capsule cannot get to the Moon, all Putin and Chirac have to do is tell their engineers to spend some time on the internet looking at CEV schematics and then they can build their own CEV, and mate it to a cheaper Russian booster.

There is nothing Delta or Atlas can do that Zenit and Proton cannot do, and for less money.

= = =

I just read Dana Rohrbacher's comments. Here:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.htm … ?pid=14407

I was pleased by his statement that he thought America's civilian space needs could be met by American companies forming partnerships with the Russians and Ukrainians.

=IF= American private companies can freely outsource lift needs to the Russians, I am less concerned about the need for shuttle derived boosters.

In summary - - IMHO:

Shuttle Derived beats Delta IVH;

Freely buying Russian/Ukrainian beats shuttle derived;

alt-space trumps all when (or IF) it comes on-line. Many here at NewMars would stress the IF. Elsewhere alt-space Kool-Aid drinking is a bit heavier.

But to give Boeing a monopoly and call it competition or privatization is just stupid.

clark · 2004-06-17 08:44:01

After all, if a Kliper capsule cannot get to the Moon, all Putin and Chirac have to do is tell their engineers to spend some time on the internet looking at CEV schematics and then they can build their own CEV, and mate it to a cheaper Russian booster.

I don't think it is as simple as you are making it out to be. No one but the US has the funds or experience in doing this, or integrating the various systems. The CEV is not just one vehicle, but a family of vehicles. Nuclear propulsion is a center piece to making this work (at least according to every architecture mentioned).

What does Europe or Russia have in the way of technical expertise on par with the US work around nuclear space reactors? The European's are still trying to figure out the role of humans in space, the Russian's want to ground their Cosmonauts in lieu of cash carrying foreigners.

Things might change when an economic or scientific potential on the moon becomes more apparent, till then, I think most other nations are just going to watch.

But to give Boeing a monopoly and call it competition or privatization is just stupid.

Ho hum, I agree.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-05-28 14:16:31

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#2 2004-06-01 15:17:17

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#3 2004-06-04 08:44:38

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#4 2004-06-04 09:03:10

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#5 2004-06-07 12:09:55

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#6 2004-06-10 21:45:45

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#7 2004-06-11 07:27:48

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#8 2004-06-11 09:05:05

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#9 2004-06-15 07:21:35

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#10 2004-06-16 10:08:22

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#11 2004-06-16 10:13:03

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#12 2004-06-16 10:27:01

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#13 2004-06-16 10:31:01

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#14 2004-06-16 10:33:31

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#15 2004-06-16 10:37:13

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#16 2004-06-16 10:41:38

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#17 2004-06-16 10:46:59

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#18 2004-06-16 12:00:57

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#19 2004-06-16 12:31:38

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#20 2004-06-16 12:38:35

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#21 2004-06-16 13:36:32

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#22 2004-06-16 13:46:46

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#23 2004-06-16 13:54:40

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#24 2004-06-17 08:06:43

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

#25 2004-06-17 08:44:01

Re: Aldridge Commission - transcripts online.

Board footer