Augustine Panel Members Identified

Looks like a great team on paper - don't know the individuals. XCOR is a great choice for private space I think. I don't think XCOR has anything with COTS and may be seen as the "honest" broker for private space.

I like it so far: A blend of old and new space.

I hope they might still include Jay Barbree, the NBC News correspondent and DEAN of ALL space reporters! Although he is not an engineer or administrator he has been around the space program since the days before "Snark infested waters" at Cape Canaveral. He knows the technical side as well as being a great judge of human nature and America's support (or lack of it) of the Space Program.

Frank's note: Surely you can't be serious. Have you read his book? It was filled with misstatements and errors. The guy was a great reporter-twenty five years ago. You want him deciding the future of human spaceflight??? My mind boggles at the thought!

EELV is a option for humans to LEO. The heavy lift versions of both families just don't cut the muster, (as published at this time), for lunar, mars, & NEA hardware. I guess we could cluster (5) A-V's or D-IV's and get near the power required. There is still the question of payload processing, pad modifications, and to man rate there is that nasty POGO effect that will need to be addressed. Direct 2.0 and Ares I/V, have the vote for best bet to get the gap closed, (If the funding will flow as required without interruption). This commission is a little late to the party, and what the hell is Jeff Greason doing on the list? Who do you have to do a favor for in order to get a chance to sit in. We will once again be on the outside watching while only the insiders get to consider our future.

Just my (2) cent.

Carl

I wonder of Ares 1 & 5 are hearing footsteps yet...

This list looks good to me so far. My hopes for a fair hearing on the the options available are still holding strong. These people should be able to make a fair judgment. I have my preferences for the results I'd like to see, but if they come up with good arguments to support their choice, I'll be pleased with whatever they select as the way forward as long as it is forward.

The next question is will NASA and Obama listen if the recommendation is a change?

Um, where are the kids? Do they not get a say in the future of their NASA?

It looks like a fine and acceptable team, and I'm sure they'll do a great job telling me what NASA's space future is going to look like.

@Frank:

I think a Moonwalker would potentially have too much of a bias towards the Moon as we hear some of them often lament as to when we'd be back there. But it's a good point nonetheless. I would suspect they might call in witnesses that would include the likes of Krantz or any Moonwalker. If they need such witnesses that is. But I would also like that we do not keep marveling in the glory of the past and rather look to the future. Any Marswalker around? ;)

Frank's note: Common Sense, you hit on the next great issue: who will be summoned to testify? Will NASA or the WH-or Norm Augustine himself make those picks? That alone will say much about the direction of their deliberations...
As far as Marswalkers go-I should live that long!

I can't wait for a NASA manager to tell Ms. Austin an EELV can't lift Orion into LEO, needs a new upper stage, has black zones, etc.

Can someone please leak a copy of the Aerospace Corp report to nasawatch?

Danny Deger

@Frank:

So what would I do if I were the WH and would like to minimize the flurry of naysayers post review? Well: I appointed an "independant" chair, Augustine. He in turn apparently chose his own "independeant" team - unless someone knows any better. My take: Augustine will call witnesses based on his views and on his membership's. Based on the time they have they will set up a schedule for the hearings and then deliberation and finally "judgement". That will drive how many witnesses they might see. But looking at the diversity of the membership (of course it could be "better", it always can) I am optimistic the witnesses will reflect that said diversity.

I would say that if someone, anyone, does not like the panel membership, they better be doing their best to get the attention of the WH with convincing arguments NOW.

Wanda Austin, eh!

At least Orion + EELV will get a fair hearing.

It would seem to me that generalists belong on the panel and experts belong in the group testifying and making their case and providing recommendations to the generalists. The generalists would need a competent technical staff to assemble the provided information into a rationale form and do the fact checking. Unfortunately that is seldom the way this sort of thing is done. In truth I thank the panel staff members are as important as the witness lists.

I like the head of the group and the people listed so far.

I can live with the results of their report. Put it in the hands of professionals with a mandate from the Whitehouse (taking into consideration budgets etc.) and see what comes out.

I look forward to reading the report.

Dear Augustine panel,

Please be sure to include review of the CxP software, ground & flight (see the Ares 1-X Ground Test thread).

Technicals & cost seems to be a big prob, now & future, and costs seem to be hidden from the overall CxP budget projections somehow.

(Whatever they're up to, they'll probably try to do the same for whatever the revamped moon program is, so need to pay attention - seems to be a big coster with high potential for bigtime overruns).

To be happy

Sally Ride, excellent! 7

The main objectives of the panel are:

"1) expediting a new U.S. capability to support use of the International Space Station; 2) supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond low Earth orbit; 3) stimulating commercial space flight capabilities; and 4) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities."

From that list, I'd think that 1, 3, and the part of 4 dealing with affordable crew and cargo space access would be items that people in organizations like Bigelow Aerospace and Astrotech (Spacehab) would have thought about a lot. Having these problems solved is important to their businesses, yet they probably aren't biased one way or the other about how the particulars of how they're solved. It's probably worth looking to organizations like these whose interests are aligned with the goals of the panel for panel members or testimony.

Does anyone on the panel have any direct launch vehicle design and development experience? Based on what I have seen of Ares 1 nobody in NASA does.

Sadly there is noone who knows about the unique enabling technologies or micro-g effects that are crucial for human exploration beyond LEO..

Everything that is happening has happened before...

...and it will happen again.

Now who will be the final two?

Mr. Bejmuk is a legend around JSC; his prior experience and the sharing of his past lessons learned from other space programs will be an asset to the panel. He has the qualities of a true leader, so I believe his input should be greatly valued.

Someone needs to keep NASA in check for this Panel. Rumor has it that they are putting a plan together for Augustine to consider that will stack the deck in NASAs favor. The plan will limit industry and public inputs to only one day each. Then NASA will do all the technical analysis of the Options.

They want ESAS 2.

NASA management should be ashamed.

@In The Know:

I will "hope" (here again I said it, hope!) that NASA does the right thing, it's not like they will have another chance for the next 4 to 8 years. So they have more or less 60 days to straighten things up.

My advice: Be openminded, this WH listens to reason (and politics for sure). But look at their appointees at DOE and OSTP. These guys are no braindead bureaucrats. Make sure you don't mess around. Otherwise the WH will know and y'all can go back to powerpoint engineering for the foreseeable future!

I hope y'all get it this time.