World of NASA Decadal Planning Team?

[redrover]

First of all, here's an article about the DPT and what they did:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/521/1. And here's a huge (35.7 mb) PDF showcasing the DPT's ideas:http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/listfiles.cgi?DOC=TM-2007-214763. I think that there are many possibilites for addon development in the report (I'm not a developer, though, so I don't know how hard it is:lol. There could be a whole collection of addons based on this report.

 

[GregBurch]

I downloaded the big PDF and have just barely skimmed through it very quickly. A few things struck me on this first, very shallow exposure to the document:

1. Despite all the carping I do about NASA, the organization does have a LOT of smart, talented people in it.

2. But they have blinders on: The whole document seems to have been constructed in a sealed environment -- there's almost no reference to the social and political context of what they want to do other than a brief section of "justifications" that just rehashes the same stuff they've been trying to base their missions on since Apollo -- and which clearly isn't sufficient to get the kind of funding and political and social support they'd need to do even a small fraction of what's described.

3. The plans are all based on expendable space access, which is a no-starter, as far as I'm concerned.

4. Most of the work seems to have been done before Constellation was locked in; and the choices that locked in Constellation are inconsistent with a whole lot of what's described in the document.

5. Which makes it yet one more well-crafted fantasy from NASA.

But there is a lot of really good technical information in the document. Thanks for the pointer!

 

[simonpro]

1. Despite all the carping I do about NASA, the organization does have a LOT of smart, talented people in it.

This is true. Unfortunately those people aren't at the top of the organisation, they're too in love with actually dong stuff to get involved in the admin.

2. But they have blinders on: The whole document seems to have been constructed in a sealed environment -- there's almost no reference to the social and political context of what they want to do other than a brief section of "justifications" that just rehashes the same stuff they've been trying to base their missions on since Apollo -- and which clearly isn't sufficient to get the kind of funding and political and social support they'd need to do even a small fraction of what's described.

Why should there be a reference to the outside world? The document is supposed to show the mission design phase as well as concepts for future exploration. It's to show how they will be engineered, not how they'll be funded. That's the job of the admin people.
I'm sure there's an equivalent document somewhere that shows how they aim to 'sell' this to congress/the public. If there isn't then that's unacceptable, NASA need a concerted effort of engineering and political pressure to make anything happen in the future.

3. The plans are all based on expendable space access, which is a no-starter, as far as I'm concerned.

Expendable space access will be the norm for at least the next 20 years, probably much longer.

5. Which makes it yet one more well-crafted fantasy from NASA.

NASA enjoys long, expensive and - above all - pointless studies on things that will never get done..it's what they do.

 

[GregBurch]

This is true. Unfortunately those people aren't at the top of the organisation, they're too in love with actually dong stuff to get involved in the admin.

Why should there be a reference to the outside world? The document is supposed to show the mission design phase as well as concepts for future exploration. It's to show how they will be engineered, not how they'll be funded. That's the job of the admin people.
I'm sure there's an equivalent document somewhere that shows how they aim to 'sell' this to congress/the public. If there isn't then that's unacceptable, NASA need a concerted effort of engineering and political pressure to make anything happen in the future.

You're right that this is an engineering document. The problem is that the feedback loop between engineering and mission design on the one hand and the people whose job it is to make it work in social and political context on the other hand is broken and has been ever since NASA lost its Apollo mandate and made the devil's bargain that resulted in the STS.

Expendable space access will be the norm for at least the next 20 years, probably much longer.

You're right, but that's because the time period in which a reasonable development of reusable space access should have been developed was wasted while NASA struggled with the consequences of that devil's bargain.

NASA enjoys long, expensive and - above all - pointless studies on things that will never get done..it's what they do.

And think of how demoralizing that is. Back when I was working on the MSC Saturn V restoration project, I had a conversation with a recently-retired senior NASA engineer. We were walking out of the dreadful "Space Center Houston" visitor center. The X-38 had been canceled in the relatively recent past. I asked why -- why, since it looked like it was on-budget, very capable and provided a sensible stepping stone and airframe foundation for a truly reusable crew LEO access vehicle. The fellow I was talking to simply said "You're right about all that." Then he paused, and a sad scowl and slowly shaking head was the only explanation he could offer.

 

[redrover]

4. Most of the work seems to have been done before Constellation was locked in; and the choices that locked in Constellation are inconsistent with a whole lot of what's described in the document.

This was the original VSE exploration plan. In fact, the DPT originated the VSE. Congress had to choose between it or developing a next generation RLV...

But, anyway, are you interested enough to do an addon for Orbiter?

 

[GregBurch]

This was the original VSE exploration plan. In fact, the DPT originated the VSE. Congress had to choose between it or developing a next generation RLV...

I didn't realize this -- that makes this a very interesting document, indeed. I know there's a lot of discussion about how this kind of study got whittled down to Ares/Constellation, but I'm too burned out on NASA to have delved very deeply into the details.

But, anyway, are you interested enough to do an addon for Orbiter?

I'm the wrong one to ask. "NASA" (or anything to do with any of the national "space programs") is noticeably absent from my "future history" addons. There's a reason.

 

[redrover]

I'm the wrong one to ask. "NASA" (or anything to do with any of the national "space programs") is noticeably absent from my "future history" addons. There's a reason.

Know anyone who would be willing?

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Why should there be a reference to the outside world? The document is supposed to show the mission design phase as well as concepts for future exploration. It's to show how they will be engineered, not how they'll be funded. That's the job of the admin people.

I'm sure there's an equivalent document somewhere that shows how they aim to 'sell' this to congress/the public. If there isn't then that's unacceptable, NASA need a concerted effort of engineering and political pressure to make anything happen in the future.

The problem is that NASA is trying to fund (read 'sell') something that congress and the public don't really need or want. Spaceflight is an extravagance, really. I see spaceflight as something with intangible positive benefits, like the international Olympics; we don't need it but it raises the human condition. But most see it as a drain of tax money, particularly when the economy is on the skids.

NASA is in a Catch-22 situation where they need to present a grand, dramatic, shiny new space system to get public attention and interest - but at the same time that attention comes with doubts as to the cost. They almost need to go into the process with two visions - the first vision that will bring the attention, and the other vision that can actually be accomplished with the 10% or less of the first visions' cost that they actually manage to get from Congress. They need to keep the fall of the axe in their fiscal planning. That is a tough way to run a business.