Pallazo: Number one threat is national debt. Congratultions of an outstanding test flight. Adjourned. Bizarre.
Almost all congresspeople opened by congratulating NASA and industry on the success of EFT-1, but other than that they gave Gerst a hard time. Especially Rohrabacher -- he was harsh even by his standards. The video will no doubt appear on the House Science Committee's website in 24 hours or so.
The objective is to have one SLS mission per year starting in 2021. NASA would like to have a Budget that at least matches inflation.
I thought that was a good hearing. The questions were very specific and Gerst did a good job trying to answer them as best he could. One of the key point that was made by Gerst was that the missions in the 2020s are likely to be all cislunar space missions. Missions in the 2030s could be around Mars, to a moon around Mars or to an asteroid in its native orbit. The objective is to have one SLS mission per year starting in 2021. NASA would like to have a Budget that at least matches inflation.
I thought that was a good hearing. The questions were very specific and Gerst did a good job trying to answer them as best he could.
Strangely (for the harsh way he comes across) is Rohrabacher the only Republican that lives is reality? The others are all waxing wistfully about project Apollo and how did we get to the Moon in only 10 years? I guess they really sucked at math and became politicians because they don’t understand decimal places as a percentage of the budget NASA gets now compared to then...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 12/11/2014 12:14 pmStrangely (for the harsh way he comes across) is Rohrabacher the only Republican that lives is reality? The others are all waxing wistfully about project Apollo and how did we get to the Moon in only 10 years? I guess they really sucked at math and became politicians because they don’t understand decimal places as a percentage of the budget NASA gets now compared to then... More important than percentages of the federal budget is inflation adjusted funding. Also, even with the existing budget we could probably do amazing things quickly if NASA didn't have to satisfy zipcode engineering requirements. Faster, Better, Cheaper, Work Done By the Same Contractors in the Same Zipcodes -- Pick at most two.~Jon
Seemed like many were just about falling over each other, to push cash into the program. It might be all talk but the concern was there regarding the 400Mil shortfall.
Quote from: jongoff on 12/11/2014 02:50 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 12/11/2014 12:14 pmStrangely (for the harsh way he comes across) is Rohrabacher the only Republican that lives is reality? The others are all waxing wistfully about project Apollo and how did we get to the Moon in only 10 years? I guess they really sucked at math and became politicians because they don’t understand decimal places as a percentage of the budget NASA gets now compared to then... More important than percentages of the federal budget is inflation adjusted funding. Also, even with the existing budget we could probably do amazing things quickly if NASA didn't have to satisfy zipcode engineering requirements. Faster, Better, Cheaper, Work Done By the Same Contractors in the Same Zipcodes -- Pick at most two.~JonI agree with you on that. But I think that NASA is right to focus on cislunar space in the 2020s under the current budget. NASA should focus on getting international and commercial partnerships for cislunar missions in the 2020s. Mars is a bridge too far under the current budget. We need to focus on making cislunar space more affordable first.
Quote from: Prober on 12/11/2014 01:11 pmSeemed like many were just about falling over each other, to push cash into the program. It might be all talk but the concern was there regarding the 400Mil shortfall.While $400M seems like a lot to us individuals, for NASA that doesn't equate to any large changes. It's good, but it's not like it's going to greatly accelerate anything or create hardware for new missions.
It's all about context; If you said 400 million was taken from Commercial crew in 2014 you would have pages of outraged NSF readers.
The $400M was entirely added to SLS/Orion, AFAICT. The Administration request for Comemrcial Crew was again cut. And the tiny budget NASA actually provides to do the research and development that is always trotted out as NASA's value to the taxpayer was also cut to feed the gaping maw of SLS/Orion. Wake up, America. The US has just slipped to number two in GDP for the first time since the administration of Ulysses S. Grant. What are flags and footprints going to do about that? We need NASA to create new technology, new jobs, new high-tech exports, not as a trivial sideline, but as a primary goal. Hey, that's why NACA was created almost a hundred years ago! Apollo was a stroke of genius in its time. But times have changed. It's time to return to our original mission.
Ms. Edwards full funding suggestion is interesting such what is done with the pentagon projects as opposed to every year or even a few months at a time... The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program alone is now around US$150 billion over budget and Palazzo brings up the national debt with relative pocket change NASA increase compared to that...Their surprise at ignoring Augustine funding suggestion would be funny if it wasn’t so sad... Chickens have come to roost and they will not fly for four more years... unless they flap their little wings...
The $400M was entirely added to SLS/Orion, AFAICT. The Administration request for Comemrcial Crew was again cut. And the tiny budget NASA actually provides to do the research and development that is always trotted out as NASA's value to the taxpayer was also cut to feed the gaping maw of SLS/Orion.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/11/2014 05:37 pmQuote from: Prober on 12/11/2014 01:11 pmSeemed like many were just about falling over each other, to push cash into the program. It might be all talk but the concern was there regarding the 400Mil shortfall.While $400M seems like a lot to us individuals, for NASA that doesn't equate to any large changes. It's good, but it's not like it's going to greatly accelerate anything or create hardware for new missions.It's all about context; If you said 400 million was taken from Commercial crew in 2014 you would have pages of outraged NSF readers.
Quote from: vulture4 on 12/12/2014 02:14 pmThe $400M was entirely added to SLS/Orion, AFAICT. The Administration request for Comemrcial Crew was again cut. And the tiny budget NASA actually provides to do the research and development that is always trotted out as NASA's value to the taxpayer was also cut to feed the gaping maw of SLS/Orion. Relative to last year: $73 M higher science budget. $109 M higher CCrew budget. $100 M higher aeronautics budget. SLS/Orion gains $130 M on the whole. Space Tech gained $20 M, and exploration R & D gained $6 M.Cut != less than requested. But we can make numbers up if you want.
Quote from: vulture4 on 12/12/2014 02:14 pmThe $400M was entirely added to SLS/Orion, AFAICT. The Administration request for Comemrcial Crew was again cut. And the tiny budget NASA actually provides to do the research and development that is always trotted out as NASA's value to the taxpayer was also cut to feed the gaping maw of SLS/Orion. Wake up, America. The US has just slipped to number two in GDP for the first time since the administration of Ulysses S. Grant. What are flags and footprints going to do about that? We need NASA to create new technology, new jobs, new high-tech exports, not as a trivial sideline, but as a primary goal. Hey, that's why NACA was created almost a hundred years ago! Apollo was a stroke of genius in its time. But times have changed. It's time to return to our original mission.If you divide that GDP per capita, you will get a different picture...
Really gets boring when the same, tired arguments keep getting the headlines.Obama's fault... Congress' fault... not enough money - yawn.
Quote from: Tea Party Space Czar on 12/15/2014 01:50 amReally gets boring when the same, tired arguments keep getting the headlines.Obama's fault... Congress' fault... not enough money - yawn.Heck of a way to run a country.Despite our pathetic government, at least bills get passed.I feel for all of you in the US.At least NASA (and DOE Pu238 production) can continue.
Quote from: Tea Party Space Czar on 12/15/2014 01:50 amReally gets boring when the same, tired arguments keep getting the headlines.Obama's fault... Congress' fault... not enough money - yawn.Heck of a way to run a country. Despite our pathetic government, at least bills get passed.I feel for all of you in the US. At least NASA (and DOE Pu238 production) can continue.
Quote from: robertross on 12/15/2014 01:54 amQuote from: Tea Party Space Czar on 12/15/2014 01:50 amReally gets boring when the same, tired arguments keep getting the headlines.Obama's fault... Congress' fault... not enough money - yawn.Heck of a way to run a country.Despite our pathetic government, at least bills get passed.I feel for all of you in the US.At least NASA (and DOE Pu238 production) can continue.Getting bills passed is not always a good thing. A lot of these bills do more harm than good. However, appropriation bills are important.
Wake up, America. The US has just slipped to number two in GDP for the first time since the administration of Ulysses S. Grant.
Quote from: Tea Party Space Czar on 12/15/2014 01:50 amReally gets boring when the same, tired arguments keep getting the headlines.Obama's fault... Congress' fault... not enough money - yawn.Looking at the Orion and SLS budget I don't think its a matter of not enough money. 1) It's how it's spent.Since the Columbia accident how many billions have been spent of Constellation, Orion and SLS? And so far we have only 2 test flights and 3 more years till the next one.2) That's the problem, bad contracting, poor performance from contractors that are sticking it to NASA and apparently no one in the government that sees the problem or wants to fix it.It's the amount of money but how it's spent.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 12/16/2014 02:21 amQuote from: Tea Party Space Czar on 12/15/2014 01:50 amReally gets boring when the same, tired arguments keep getting the headlines.Obama's fault... Congress' fault... not enough money - yawn.Looking at the Orion and SLS budget I don't think its a matter of not enough money. 1) It's how it's spent.Since the Columbia accident how many billions have been spent of Constellation, Orion and SLS? And so far we have only 2 test flights and 3 more years till the next one.2) That's the problem, bad contracting, poor performance from contractors that are sticking it to NASA and apparently no one in the government that sees the problem or wants to fix it.It's the amount of money but how it's spent.1) You on the point2) It's not bad contractors they are doing what they bid for. It's the design and management of the SLS program. Had "management" gone for direct, or my favorite sidemount, we would have a less expensive program. Possibly without all the bells and whistles NASA management wants we could be in test phase right now.
My own feeling on this issue is that the sidemount and other proposals were not particularly practical, but if the Shuttle program had been continued a few years, which would have been reasonable, then they could have been implemented at modest cost since the facilities would be operating anyway. However once the decision was made to scrap the Shuttle, designs that used the same infrastructure (including the SDHLV concepts, Sidemount, and the SLS) immediately had to assume the full overhead cost and thus became impractical. That did not stop SLS because of its political support. But in fact the correct decision from the perspective of stewardship of our tax dollars would be to abandon all the Shuttle infrastructure and use the land for new concepts.
No, it was a bad idea. Side mount had too many compromises. It only made sense when the shuttle was flying. Atlas tank on it?. Not a good idea or even feasible.
Orion has arrived back at KSC. Repeatedly described by PAO as "NASA's first new manned spacecraft in decades". What about Dragon? Both Dragon and Orion were built by contractors and paid for, at least partly, by NASA to meet NASA requirements. I see no reason Dragon is less of a "NASA spacecraft".
Quote from: Jim on 12/17/2014 07:42 pmNo, it was a bad idea. Side mount had too many compromises. It only made sense when the shuttle was flying. Atlas tank on it?. Not a good idea or even feasible.A quick napkin thinking
Quote from: vulture4 on 12/18/2014 06:21 pmOrion has arrived back at KSC. Repeatedly described by PAO as "NASA's first new manned spacecraft in decades". What about Dragon? Both Dragon and Orion were built by contractors and paid for, at least partly, by NASA to meet NASA requirements. I see no reason Dragon is less of a "NASA spacecraft".SpaceX owns the IP of Dragon and not NASA and therefore is its a Spacex spacecraft. No different than Delta or Atlas, which are ULA's and not NASA or USAF. NASA owns the IP of Orion and SLS and hence those are NASA vehicles.
No, it was a bad idea. Side mount had too many compromises. It only made sense when the shuttle was flying. ...
Quote from: Jim on 12/17/2014 07:42 pmNo, it was a bad idea. Side mount had too many compromises. It only made sense when the shuttle was flying. ...It made sense if basically your only goals were to fly a NASA HLV (okay, 50mT?) as quick as possible and to use Shuttle parts and infrastructure to do it. Keep the tank identical, boosters identical, flame trench identical, heck keep the engine section and interfaces as close to identical as possible. You're compromising payload, but who cares? You're saving a whole decade of development time and money. You accomplish the goals as quickly as possible. Then, shut 'er down and use EELVs like you're supposed to.
Quote from: Jim on 12/18/2014 06:50 pmQuote from: vulture4 on 12/18/2014 06:21 pmOrion has arrived back at KSC. Repeatedly described by PAO as "NASA's first new manned spacecraft in decades". What about Dragon? Both Dragon and Orion were built by contractors and paid for, at least partly, by NASA to meet NASA requirements. I see no reason Dragon is less of a "NASA spacecraft".SpaceX owns the IP of Dragon and not NASA and therefore is its a Spacex spacecraft. No different than Delta or Atlas, which are ULA's and not NASA or USAF. NASA owns the IP of Orion and SLS and hence those are NASA vehicles.And the IP of Orion and SLS would be ...? And the portion that is not retained by the contractors would be ....?http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2027_3.html
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/19/2014 03:47 amQuote from: Jim on 12/17/2014 07:42 pmNo, it was a bad idea. Side mount had too many compromises. It only made sense when the shuttle was flying. ...It made sense if basically your only goals were to fly a NASA HLV (okay, 50mT?) as quick as possible and to use Shuttle parts and infrastructure to do it. Keep the tank identical, boosters identical, flame trench identical, heck keep the engine section and interfaces as close to identical as possible. You're compromising payload, but who cares? You're saving a whole decade of development time and money. You accomplish the goals as quickly as possible. Then, shut 'er down and use EELVs like you're supposed to.The problem is your last line...the EELV's are not NASA launchers. Would like to have seen close to continued launches even if it was tests once every 12-18months. Just to have a operating space program.
Quote from: Prober on 12/19/2014 01:37 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 12/19/2014 03:47 amQuote from: Jim on 12/17/2014 07:42 pmNo, it was a bad idea. Side mount had too many compromises. It only made sense when the shuttle was flying. ...It made sense if basically your only goals were to fly a NASA HLV (okay, 50mT?) as quick as possible and to use Shuttle parts and infrastructure to do it. Keep the tank identical, boosters identical, flame trench identical, heck keep the engine section and interfaces as close to identical as possible. You're compromising payload, but who cares? You're saving a whole decade of development time and money. You accomplish the goals as quickly as possible. Then, shut 'er down and use EELVs like you're supposed to.The problem is your last line...the EELV's are not NASA launchers. Would like to have seen close to continued launches even if it was tests once every 12-18months. Just to have a operating space program. a launch vehicle is not a space program. A space program doesn't need it's own launch vehicle if there are several domestic ones available at lower cost. THIS is the biggest problem NASA faces right now.
If, hypothetically, SLS and Orion were cancelled, the money that it would free up wouldn't necessarily go to NASA. The money could instead go to some other agency or toward reducing the deficit.
IMO, only a shared vision, between the Administration and Congress, with a strongly mission-oriented objective (e.g. permanent lunar base, Mars expedition, etc)
Quote from: chamann on 12/23/2014 04:57 amIMO, only a shared vision, between the Administration and Congress, with a strongly mission-oriented objective (e.g. permanent lunar base, Mars expedition, etc) those are not what NASA or the gov't should be doing. Those are outside of NASA's "vision"
Quote from: Jim on 12/23/2014 11:21 amQuote from: chamann on 12/23/2014 04:57 amIMO, only a shared vision, between the Administration and Congress, with a strongly mission-oriented objective (e.g. permanent lunar base, Mars expedition, etc) those are not what NASA or the gov't should be doing. Those are outside of NASA's "vision"? NASA's vision: To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/what_does_nasa_do.html#.VJlme0CAAThat vision can easily include a lunar or Mars mission. It currently encompasses ISS.
I'm surprised, too.Expedition to Moon or Mars, even a Base at Moon or Mars seems to me well within NASA territory. I would draw the line at colonizing. That is why I was surprised about NASA Charles Bolden speaking about "Making Humanity multi plaentary" using Elon Musks headline.
2014 was a very bad year for "New Space" with VG, SpaceX grasshopper and Orbital events.
SpaceX - Only a SpaceX hater would characterize loss of F9R Dev1 as anything other than a SUCCESS. The point of testing is to test things, preferably to, and beyond the envelope. They predicted they'd have some vehicle losses, and were fretting that they hadn't been pushing hard enough. The FTS worked beautifully as well. Major success there. But yes, the media latched on to it.
Quote from: Blackstar on 12/23/2014 11:57 amQuote from: Jim on 12/23/2014 11:21 amQuote from: chamann on 12/23/2014 04:57 amIMO, only a shared vision, between the Administration and Congress, with a strongly mission-oriented objective (e.g. permanent lunar base, Mars expedition, etc) those are not what NASA or the gov't should be doing. Those are outside of NASA's "vision"? NASA's vision: To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/what_does_nasa_do.html#.VJlme0CAAThat vision can easily include a lunar or Mars mission. It currently encompasses ISS.The vision statement that Blackstar has linked to is a vision only within NASA and perhaps not adopted by Congress? My Google-fu has turned up an original charter from 1958... signed into law by the founder of the military industrial complex, President Dwight D. Eisenhower.http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.htmlQuote from: National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 ("Unamended")Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.(b) ... military... DoD .... yada yada yada ....(c) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and( 8 ) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment.Somewhere there has been an unofficial amendment to retract from "peace" to benefit all men. This statement has removed the word peace and has changed "mankind" to all "humankind". I'm glad that women are now considered humans.IMO when then there is a tinge of non-peaceful activities... this is acceptable to me. To me, sanitizing the solar system of bacteria is nice. I condone this message.I think the abstract concept of "unnecessary duplication of effort" in Section (c) 8 would be at risk of nonconformance to the law if NASA is told by Congress to adopt an "unnecessary" competitive bid process between Orion, SLS and the Soyuz program to simply go to the ISS. The thought that we have "unnecessary" duplication among multiple commercial partners seems to also be playing out. There are multiple facilities all doing the same thing, we already know this. It is the concept of duplication of effort that has me spun up right now. Section (c) 5 might say that the US dependencies with Russian engines should be curtailed.NASA's vision cannot legally be dictated by NASA. It needs to come from Congress (and I say also should be defined by Jim). So if Jim believes there is an internal committee that drives NASA vision outside of Congress, this would be pretty interesting. Edit: There needs to be an amendment to include benefits to states OUTSIDE of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and California as part of "all humankind". NASA's vision that Blackstar is referencing is only stuff in section 102 (c) 1. THERE IS NOTHING IN NASA's CHARTER ABOUT GOING TO MARS! Only the atmosphere and space.
Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.(b) ... military... DoD .... yada yada yada ....(c) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and( 8 ) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment.
Agree and believe this is the point. Believe that there needs to be an amendment of the National Aeronautics and Space Act for NASA to be involved in a Mars mission.
Ok. Let's say there does not need to be an amendment to the 1958 Space Act. Everything is fine.Who specifically in Congress wants to fund an international mission to Mars (plus options for colonization)? The only person in Congress that seems to want something close to this is Rep. Culbertson from Texas. But, this congressman claims he needs to also fix NASA.Quote from: Rep. Culberson"My job is to say ‘no’ to new spending everywhere, so I can make sure there’s enough funding for scientific research and space exploration" -Culbersonhttp://www.houstonchronicle.com/nasa/adrift/7/So what you're implying is... that Culberson may not need to shut down funding everywhere else in order to save NASA. He also wants a probe to go to Europa before Mars. But I guess NASA is already fully authorized to go to Mars. So doing more at NASA is better, but others will have to do with less.Not seeing how this is possible, really. If you say so... I guess NASA has enough authorization and resources to execute an international Mars mission right now. Maybe Putin will pay for it all. He said this year that Russia was going to go to the moon 'forever'.
"My job is to say ‘no’ to new spending everywhere, so I can make sure there’s enough funding for scientific research and space exploration" -Culberson
and lower costs don't automatically translate into cost savings, schedule or assured access to space. 2014 was a very bad year for "New Space" with VG, SpaceX grasshopper and Orbital events.
Quote from: Blackstar on 12/23/2014 10:27 pmRather than have everything described above play out, I think what the US is doing right now is to 'make it look' like nothing is going on and just get the US heavy lift systems online (SLS, Orion, or some SpaceX thing). Once these units have been rated/certified for astronauts, then they will go announce a Mars mission if it is feasible. Otherwise, the US is going nowhere / because they are not able to send XXX billions of US taxpayer dollars to another country to go to Mars.Makes you wonder why anybody would even want to present a vision right now.
Rather than have everything described above play out, I think what the US is doing right now is to 'make it look' like nothing is going on and just get the US heavy lift systems online (SLS, Orion, or some SpaceX thing). Once these units have been rated/certified for astronauts, then they will go announce a Mars mission if it is feasible. Otherwise, the US is going nowhere / because they are not able to send XXX billions of US taxpayer dollars to another country to go to Mars.Makes you wonder why anybody would even want to present a vision right now.