Author Topic: House Hearing on ISS with Bill Gerstenmaier - March 28, 2012  (Read 8066 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31557
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9907
  • Likes Given: 309
Re: House Hearing on ISS with Bill Gerstenmaier -March 28, 2012
« Reply #20 on: 03/30/2012 02:54 AM »
Oh, I understand the idea.. I just think it's a little silly to add more requirements to something that is already slipping! Maybe I just misunderstand.. are they getting these additions now or after the slipped launch? Either way, if these new requirements result in more slips later then you'd have to agree it is counterproductive, no?

The slips and new requirements are independent.

Anyways, if  new requirements cause slips, then there is no penalty or adjustment.

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8300
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3127
  • Likes Given: 747
Re: House Hearing on ISS with Bill Gerstenmaier -March 28, 2012
« Reply #21 on: 03/30/2012 02:58 AM »
The slips and new requirements are independent.

What are you trying to say here? The new requirements are penalties for the slips.. Gerstenmaier said so.

Quote
Anyways, if  new requirements cause slips, then there is no penalty or adjustment.

Then why wouldn't the partner just ignore them? Clearly NASA has a mechanism to penalize slips in implementation of the new requirements, and I can't imagine it is a different mechanism.

Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31557
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9907
  • Likes Given: 309
Re: House Hearing on ISS with Bill Gerstenmaier -March 28, 2012
« Reply #22 on: 03/30/2012 03:15 AM »
The slips and new requirements are independent.

What are you trying to say here? The new requirements are penalties for the slips.. Gerstenmaier said so.

Quote
Anyways, if  new requirements cause slips, then there is no penalty or adjustment.

Then why wouldn't the partner just ignore them? Clearly NASA has a mechanism to penalize slips in implementation of the new requirements, and I can't imagine it is a different mechanism.



There are delays and there is a requirement for a capability that was needed eventually.  The delays necessitated that new capability be move forward and incorporated on "early" missions.

NASA is the customer.  There aren't really delays in implementing new requirements because they aren't that intensive.  Anyways, they are accounted for differently than missions slips. 

As for "new" requirement, it is just adding power for NASA provided refrigerators and dealing with the heat load.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2012 03:16 AM by Jim »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9229
  • Liked: 1195
  • Likes Given: 786
Re: House Hearing on ISS with Bill Gerstenmaier -March 28, 2012
« Reply #23 on: 03/30/2012 03:23 AM »
It was a positive meeting.

One of the things that Gerst said that was interesting was that a decision to extent the ISS past 2020 would need to be made around the end of 2015.

Offline Space Pete

Good hearing, thanks for the notes QG. Nice to see congress taking an interest in what ISS is actually for - and these folks seemed to have a good handle on ISS ops too, with regard challenges, vehicle availabilities, etc.
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Tags: