A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Doug Loverro resigns as Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 19th 20, 10:40 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Doug Loverro resigns as Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations


Doug Loverro resigns as Associate Administrator for Human Exploration
and Operations
ERIC BERGER - 5/19/2020, 4:37 PM - Ars Technica
https://tinyurl.com/y7pd5ydx

From above:

However, his departure does not seem to be directly related
to his work on Crew Dragon. Rather it seems to stem from the
recent process during which NASA selected three bids?led by
Blue Origin, Dynetics, and SpaceX?from among five bidders.
In an email to the human exploration staff at NASA on
Tuesday, Loverro admitted that he made a mistake earlier
this year.

"Our mission is certainly not easy, nor for the faint of
heart, and risk-taking is part of the job description,"
Loverro wrote. "The risks we take, whether technical,
political, or personal, all have potential consequences if
we judge them incorrectly. I took such a risk earlier in
the year because I judged it necessary to fulfill our
mission. Now, over the balance of time, it is clear that I
made a mistake in that choice for which I alone must bear
the consequences. And therefore, it is with a very, very
heavy heart that I write to you today to let you know that
I have resigned from NASA effective May 18th, 2020."

I smell Boeing.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #2  
Old May 20th 20, 04:15 AM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Doug Loverro resigns as Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations

On 2020-05-19 5:40 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Doug Loverro resigns as Associate Administrator for Human Exploration
and Operations
ERIC BERGER - 5/19/2020, 4:37 PM - Ars Technica
https://tinyurl.com/y7pd5ydx

[snip]

I smell Boeing.

Jeff


Yeah, what up with this?

Seems very strange to get booted for something that hasn't even been
built yet. There's something here that doesn't meet the eye.

Some Congress critter (Boeing) threatening to expose some kind of shady
business deal that Loverro missed? Or a self-deal Loverro forgot to
divorce himself from?

Dave
  #3  
Old May 20th 20, 12:13 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Doug Loverro resigns as Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations

In article , says...

On 2020-05-19 5:40 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Doug Loverro resigns as Associate Administrator for Human Exploration
and Operations
ERIC BERGER - 5/19/2020, 4:37 PM - Ars Technica
https://tinyurl.com/y7pd5ydx

[snip]

I smell Boeing.

Jeff


Yeah, what up with this?

Seems very strange to get booted for something that hasn't even been
built yet. There's something here that doesn't meet the eye.


NASA eliminated Boeing's lander from the competition completely. Even
worse, for Boeing, none of the landers chosen to continue on at this
time will use SLS. All of the landers will use distributed launch
instead.

This is one more nail in the coffin for SLS. Once the landers prove the
cost efficiencies of distributed launch, compared to the insanely high
price of an SLS launch, what's to stop NASA from shifting Orion to
distributed launch?

You could launch Orion on a Falcon 9, Vulcan, or New Glenn and then
launch a high energy upper stage on another launch vehicle (Falcon
Heavy, Vulcan, or New Glenn). Dock the two in earth orbit, and away you
go. You can get Orion to Gateway for less than half a billion in launch
costs compared to the $1-$2 billion it's really going to cost to launch
SLS. Heck, even the RS-25E engines for one SLS launch are going to cost
NASA $400 million alone.

Obviously Congress will have to relent and stop funding SLS, but the
above sets up SLS to be a highly visible boondoggle that's holding back
other spending on human exploration of the moon (crewed bases, crewed
rovers, in-situ propellant production, and etc).

Note that the above is all speculation on my part. But given what
Senator Shelby has done in the past this seems likely. Remember when
the news broke that Shelby told ULA to never mention propellant depots,
squashing all engineering development they were planning to do as ride-
shares on Centaur upper stages? ULA even has the PDF on their website
still.

https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/extended-
duration/cryogenic-orbital-testbed-(cryote)-2009.pdf

Note the year, 2009! Politics has held back development of propellant
depots for over a decade now. ULA has more experience with long term
cryogenic storage of propellants than any other US company.
Deliberately holding them back is absolutely horrible for US technology
development.

Some Congress critter (Boeing) threatening to expose some kind of shady
business deal that Loverro missed? Or a self-deal Loverro forgot to
divorce himself from?


Good question. I'm hoping we find out for sure, but it seems likely
that this has to do with the way that the human lander selection was
handled, IMHO.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #4  
Old May 20th 20, 12:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Doug Loverro resigns as Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations

In article ,
says...

On 2020-05-19 17:40, Jeff Findley wrote:

I smell Boeing.



Shirley, the publication of the 3 winners would have been approved by
people all the way to the top?


I'm sure it was, but someone has to be the scapegoat. And stop calling
me Shirly!

If Boeing lobbied heavily and had been
told by people at the top to not worry, then people at the top would
have ensured Boeing made it to the winners.


I'm sure they were lobbying, but didn't get the result they wanted.
Their lander was completely eliminated from the competition and none of
the selected landers will use SLS as a launch vehicle. That's two more
nails in the coffin of SLS.

Employees could resign if top management forces an inferior bid to be
selected, and this would happen before the winners are announced so that
top manegement can install a person who agrees with their choice and
then when the winners are announced everyone is happy, including Boeing.


This time, the inferior bid, Boeing's, was called out and was not
selected.

But since this guy resigned after the winners are announced, I don't
see how that fits in.


This smells more like payback (sour grapes). Boeing wanted its pound of
flesh and Bridenstine had to find a scapegoat. So, he asked the head Of
NASA's Human Spaceflight Program to resign. That was Doug Loverro.

The one way I could see this process happen is if Boeing conveyed their
unhappiness to the actor at 1600 who got a temper tantrum and asked the
top guy at NASA to fire whoever didn't select Boeing, since Boeiong is a
large donor to the party and are very unhappy they weren't selected.


Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

But will it cause NASA to review the award? I am not sure.


No, because this Administration wants a landing by 2024 and reviewing
the award just slows things down. That also would not be politically
acceptable by the Administration. So, you've got your Boeing
Congressional lobbyists pitted against the Administration's wishes. My
guess is in this case the Administration will win, because Boeing really
did put forward a horrible proposal for their crewed lunar lander.



At least it didn't go the other way. Usually Boeing tries to force the
US Government's hand to give it the contract despite it being the
inferior proposal.

Case in point, Airbus was chosen to be the next Air Force tanker, then
Boeing stepped in and got that decision completely changed to the KC-46.
That program is now a ****show of problems. In this case the inferior
aircraft was selected, and it kept jobs in the US.

But, the US Taxpayer loses because the aircraft can't do the job it was
designed to do. So how will this be fixed? Buy throwing more money at
Boeing to fix the problems, of course! That's how "cost plus" works.

If you do a Google search for "Boeing tanker", this kind of stuff pops
up:

Watch The Boom On Boeing's Troubled KC-46 Tanker Nearly ...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...om-on-boeings-
troubled-kc-46-tanker-smack-into-an-f-15e

The Air Force's KC-46 tanker has another serious technical ...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020...-kc-46-tanker-
has-another-serious-technical-deficiency-and-boeing-is-stuck-paying-for-
it/

Boeing's Troubled K-46 Tanker Aircraft Can't Catch a Break
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...5097/boeing-k-
46-tanker-aircraft/


Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #5  
Old May 20th 20, 07:22 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Doug Loverro resigns as Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations

In article ,
says...

Doug Loverro resigns as Associate Administrator for Human Exploration
and Operations
ERIC BERGER - 5/19/2020, 4:37 PM - Ars Technica
https://tinyurl.com/y7pd5ydx

snip

I smell Boeing.


New article:

SO LONG LOVERRO -Here's why NASA's chief of human spaceflight resigned
and why it matters. Loverro was ardently trying to fulfill his 2024
Moon landing mandate.
ERIC BERGER - 5/20/2020, 11:31 AM
https://tinyurl.com/y8j9bsc9

From above:

So Loverro was under the gun to get humans on the Moon by 2024,
he had concerns about most of the bids, and he favored integrated
launch. This means Loverro likely favored the design of Boeing's
bid for a Human Landing System, which entailed launching an
integrated lander on a "commercial" Space Launch System rocket.
It seems reasonable to assume that Loverro may have been pushing
Boeing to come up with a more competitive bid. (After the awards
were given to Blue Origin, Dynetics, and SpaceX, the agency's
"source selection statement" indicated that Boeing's bid did not
make it past a preliminary round of consideration).

When the inspector general found out about this, it likely
precipitated Loverro's resignation.

So, it looks like Loverro may have talked to Boeing during the selection
process to tell them their proposal was inadequate and needed
improvement. This is likely because Loverro does not think that
distributed launch is a viable way to get people on the moon by 2024.
But this is not at all legal and would certainly be grounds for firing
(had it gone through the IG and been proven true). So resigning was the
logical thing to do.

The irony is he fell on is sword for nothing, since Boeing was
eliminated from the competition anyway!

This is all sad, really, because I personally believe that placing your
bet on the big orange rocket has far longer odds of winning than placing
your bet on distributed launch.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #6  
Old May 20th 20, 08:24 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Doug Loverro resigns as Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

The irony is he fell on is sword for nothing, since Boeing was
eliminated from the competition anyway!

This is all sad, really, because I personally believe that placing your
bet on the big orange rocket has far longer odds of winning than placing
your bet on distributed launch.

Jeff


I first misread your final paragraph as in support of SLS and it took me
aback.

But then I thought about it. If your "goal" is a flags and footprints
mission. Honestly, SLS is probably the way to go.
Overbuild a single-one off, spend lots of money on a barely marginal lander,
fly, land, get some rocks, come home and declare victory.

BUT, if you want anything sustainable, then yeah, any of the other options
are probably better.

In a sense, I think it's a set of competing goals. A certain person at 1600
Pennsylvania Ave wants a lunar landing in 2024. He doesn’t really care how
it's done. He's not a details man.
But, I think others, including many at NASA are starting to really move
towards a goal of a sustainable system.

So, Loverro I think was caught between both goals and suffered.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #8  
Old May 20th 20, 11:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Doug Loverro resigns as Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

The irony is he fell on is sword for nothing, since Boeing was
eliminated from the competition anyway!

This is all sad, really, because I personally believe that placing your
bet on the big orange rocket has far longer odds of winning than placing
your bet on distributed launch.

Jeff


I first misread your final paragraph as in support of SLS and it took me
aback.

But then I thought about it. If your "goal" is a flags and footprints
mission. Honestly, SLS is probably the way to go.
Overbuild a single-one off, spend lots of money on a barely marginal lander,
fly, land, get some rocks, come home and declare victory.

BUT, if you want anything sustainable, then yeah, any of the other options
are probably better.

In a sense, I think it's a set of competing goals. A certain person at 1600
Pennsylvania Ave wants a lunar landing in 2024. He doesn?t really care how
it's done. He's not a details man.
But, I think others, including many at NASA are starting to really move
towards a goal of a sustainable system.

So, Loverro I think was caught between both goals and suffered.


From what I've read, Loverro was *not* a fan of distributed launch. So,
he would have supported the Boeing lander which would have required SLS
1B (the version with the EUS) to launch it. You'd still need a separate
SLS to launch Orion, since SLS simply can't handle both at the same
time. But you need that with all of the other proposals too.

It's all pretty confusing right now. All the articles I've read are
speculating to some degree.

Jeff

--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #9  
Old May 21st 20, 07:44 AM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Doug Loverro resigns as Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations

On 2020-05-20 6:29 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:

It's all pretty confusing right now. All the articles I've read are
speculating to some degree.

Jeff


I'd use the word depressing.

Dave
  #10  
Old May 24th 20, 07:50 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Doug Loverro resigns as Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations

In article ,
says...

Scott Manley's take on the resignation:
https://youtu.be/pHV14Tc2Jmw (8:47)

I watched that last night, nothing really new there.

Speculation is he gave Boeing information that he should not have.
Likely information that they should have changed their proposal to make
it more competitive. Possibly even specific information on the other
proposals.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gerstenmaier Out As HEOMD Associate Administrator Jeff Findley[_6_] Policy 2 July 13th 19 08:54 PM
NASA deputy administrator Frederick D. Gregory resigns Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 September 9th 05 05:19 PM
Rex Geveden selected as NASA associate administrator Jacques van Oene News 0 August 17th 05 08:30 PM
NASA ADMINISTRATOR SEAN O'KEEFE RESIGNS Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 December 14th 04 12:07 AM
NASA ADMINISTRATOR SEAN O'KEEFE RESIGNS Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 December 14th 04 12:07 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.