Quote from: William Barton on 03/04/2010 02:56 pm... But if STS is continued to 2015, where's the urgency for space, new or old? And suppose SpaceX and OSC fail to deliver the goods? STS will take up the slack. If there weren't any more disasters between then and now, come 2015, what's to stop Congress from saying, "Okay, lets just keep flying STS 'til the end of ISS in 2020?" That's what I was saying, with regard to the "gap crisis" and the urgency of CCDEV. The easiest way to solve a problem is to ignore it, until something bad happens. Then it's too late.As I understood it, one of the CAIB recommendations was that if shuttle were to keep flying past X deadline in front of us, it has to be re-certified to continue to fly safely. For STS to keep flying we would need to somehow pay for this or waiver this certification. And if SpaceX or OSC fail (which ignores ULA, whom stands a far better chance), that's the whole point... If commercial fails, not having a backup plan doesn't get them to succeed earlier... If you want them to succeed earlier, they need more money and more incentive to finish better and faster.NewSpace and commercialism is all about business, not meeting some panic gap, they will work harder for more money, not for ideals.
... But if STS is continued to 2015, where's the urgency for space, new or old? And suppose SpaceX and OSC fail to deliver the goods? STS will take up the slack. If there weren't any more disasters between then and now, come 2015, what's to stop Congress from saying, "Okay, lets just keep flying STS 'til the end of ISS in 2020?" That's what I was saying, with regard to the "gap crisis" and the urgency of CCDEV. The easiest way to solve a problem is to ignore it, until something bad happens. Then it's too late.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 01:03 pmWhoa, lots of posts of upset from you, along with a list of "statements of fact" - which are very danagerous, especially when some of them are clearly wrong (I found the "what about inspiring kids" especially ironic, as I'm not sure which kids we're talking about, when it comes to being inspired by "look Johnny, NASA's got you a new Global Warming chart" - "Wow, neat!").Chris, as a matter of fact, this path they are proposing (STS extension and HLV development) will leave NASA doing nothing but have expensive systems to go to the ISS instead of lean systems to go to the ISS. NASA just won't get a 15bn budget increase as suggested by this amendment bill over 5 years. Not in this budget environment.1. How likely is it that NASA will get an increase in budget of more than 10% from FY2010 to FY2011 and further 6% from FY2011 to FY2012 as proposed in this amendment bill? I say it's impossible.2. If the budget stays as proposed (6bn more in the next 5 years) what would STS extension AND HLV development AND keeping Orion do to the budget? The above numbers I posted hold absolutely true when you look at that scenariom everything that is proposed in the new budget (technology line items, robotic precursor, commercial crew program) need to be scraped in favor or STS extension, HLV development and Orion. So in 5-6 years you might have Orion in 8 years an HLV and you used STS 2 times a year (while still relying on Soyuz for lifeboat services) and then you end up going nowhere, because you don't have anything developed for BEO flights.3. But even if the budget is increased as proposed, the only line-item we can "play" with is Exploration with FY2011: 4263bn and FY2012: 4577bn:Orion makes up 1938.9bn and 2056.1bn respectively, the Human Research Program 215bn each year, commercial cargo incentives shall not be scraped so that's another 312bn in FY2011 only (and I am not even talking about program integration + other advanced capabilities line-items from the current FY2010 budget). That leaves us with ~1800bn in FY2011 and about ~2300bn in FY2012 for a. an HLV development program + in-deep space propulsion b. the robotic precursor mission program and c. the Exploration Tech and R&D line item as well. Something will have to give in as the money available isn't enough for all of a. to c.QuoteHowever, the above is interesting. Even if that's correct - which it isn't if you read the Bill, or my article, as I quoted that part of the Bill on this - you're claiming you're in support of a HLV in the 2030s, over a HLV at least 10 years sooner?Not sure where you get that I claim I am in support of an HLV in the 2030s vs. an HLV 10 years sooner. I am in support of a sustainable path for NASA, not a dream that will be cancelled again due to future budget shortfalls which will come again no matter what.
Whoa, lots of posts of upset from you, along with a list of "statements of fact" - which are very danagerous, especially when some of them are clearly wrong (I found the "what about inspiring kids" especially ironic, as I'm not sure which kids we're talking about, when it comes to being inspired by "look Johnny, NASA's got you a new Global Warming chart" - "Wow, neat!").
However, the above is interesting. Even if that's correct - which it isn't if you read the Bill, or my article, as I quoted that part of the Bill on this - you're claiming you're in support of a HLV in the 2030s, over a HLV at least 10 years sooner?
It might be a good sign if the members of a commercial interest on here are protesting.
There is plans for a NASA 2010 Authorization bill. Whether it is this bill or not makes no difference. They could still take some elements of this bill and incorporate it in a 2010 NASA Authorization Bill. Senator Nelson mentionned that Congress would be tweeking the NASA FY2011 budget.
Quote from: dad2059 on 03/04/2010 03:14 pmAnd I have a question for the forum; "If the FY2011 Budget had been proposed by a Republican President John McCain, would there have been as much resistance to it?"I believe so, since I don't believe the "sides" of this are Democrat / Republican.
And I have a question for the forum; "If the FY2011 Budget had been proposed by a Republican President John McCain, would there have been as much resistance to it?"
1 (g) NO FISCAL YEAR LIMITATION ON FUNDING.—2 All funds appropriated pursuant to this section shall re-3 main available until expended.
<snip>How long - even on the fastest timeline - can these Bill/Act processes take to enactment?<snip>I won't pretend to understand politics, so input would be appreciated.
Quote from: psloss on 03/04/2010 03:21 pmQuote from: dad2059 on 03/04/2010 03:14 pmAnd I have a question for the forum; "If the FY2011 Budget had been proposed by a Republican President John McCain, would there have been as much resistance to it?"I believe so, since I don't believe the "sides" of this are Democrat / Republican.I was wondering since this issue, like the Health Care seemed to be bitterly partisan.But as you say, now that I recall, the Constellation Program enjoyed bipartisan support.
CLB22This is your opinion. However the "claim for hlv by 2020" is very realistic and achievable. This is accomplished by using the SDHLV which can be ready by then or sooner. There are MANY facts to back that up, and if you want to question them please consult the DIRECT team who actually has done the research on ALL of this stuff.
Quote from: William Barton on 03/04/2010 01:24 pmI think the enthusiasm for the February proposal is based on the way it essentially cleared the field for commercial crew, by shutting down STSSTS was shut down by a decision of President George W. Bush in January 2004.
I think the enthusiasm for the February proposal is based on the way it essentially cleared the field for commercial crew, by shutting down STS
If Shuttle is extended to 2015, there is no sense in having any CRS flights before then (except maybe demos), since Shuttle would provide ISS with more than enough upmass at two flights per year.I think this bill substantially overestimates the launch manifest that can be supported by the ISS. And that's all this bill seems to be: an attempt to use the ISS as justification for simultaneously funding everybody's favorite launch programs.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 02:04 pmThere is plans for a NASA 2010 Authorization bill. Whether it is this bill or not makes no difference. They could still take some elements of this bill and incorporate it in a 2010 NASA Authorization Bill. Senator Nelson mentionned that Congress would be tweeking the NASA FY2011 budget. The word Mr. Nelson used was “perfect”. Please try to use the words an elected pol uses. I know this seems snarkish, and for that I do apologize, but it is important that we use the words they do for contextual reasons.
It's more a President versus Congress issue. I think that the Democrats are letting the Republicans do all of the complaining because the President is a Democrat. But if you listen to Nelson and other Democrats, they are also not to happy with the President's NASA plan.
Quote from: butters on 03/04/2010 03:49 pmIf Shuttle is extended to 2015, there is no sense in having any CRS flights before then (except maybe demos), since Shuttle would provide ISS with more than enough upmass at two flights per year.I think this bill substantially overestimates the launch manifest that can be supported by the ISS. And that's all this bill seems to be: an attempt to use the ISS as justification for simultaneously funding everybody's favorite launch programs.Agreed. Unfortunately this bill is "jobs first, NASA, exploration and taxpayer money later".
I am not sure what you are diagreeing with. This is an authorization bill (not an appropriation bill). Nelson even mentionned that he has rarely seen a time when both appropriators and authorizing people in Congress both agree that they don't like the new plan.
Quote from: Danderman on 03/04/2010 01:57 pmI posted earlier about the path the Hutchinson bill must follow to become law. I would appreciate it greatly if anyone who posts about the wonders of this draft bill would look at the path it must take before assuming the Hutchinson bill has more than a one percent chance of enactment.A similar argument could be made for the chances of the current forward plan being approved by Congress. There has to be a compromise, there will be a compromise, and you seem to be using the "this Bill, word for word, won't get through". Probably not, but that's not the purpose. The purpose is to create a basis of argument for Congress to find that middle ground.To that purpose, this Bill is excellent.
I posted earlier about the path the Hutchinson bill must follow to become law. I would appreciate it greatly if anyone who posts about the wonders of this draft bill would look at the path it must take before assuming the Hutchinson bill has more than a one percent chance of enactment.
...The new bill seems to pull the rug out from under the NewSpace competitors because extending STS to 2015 palliates the "gap crisis," and makes CCDEV seems less urgent. Reestablishing any or all components of CxP would simply put everyone back where they were last year....
...NewSpace has got plenty to do, and plenty of money to make. Their sense of urgency, I think, will continue under the proposed bill...
That's not strictly accurate. SpaceX and OSC have plenty to do, and money to make if they succeed. But if STS is continued to 2015, where's the urgency for space, new or old? ...
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 04:02 pmI am not sure what you are diagreeing with. This is an authorization bill (not an appropriation bill). Nelson even mentionned that he has rarely seen a time when both appropriators and authorizing people in Congress both agree that they don't like the new plan. I'm disagreeing with the idea that the factions are Democrat vs. Republican or Executive vs. Legislative. With respect to authorization vs. appropriations, they might not like the Administration's plan, but do you think there might be some disagreement between them about the Shuttle Extension money authorized in this bill -- since it's on top of NASA's top line?