Author Topic: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV  (Read 300177 times)

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
... 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.

The CAIB recertification requirement has been discussed here at length. The current sense is, RTF changes constitute "recertification" in large measure, so it's already been paid-for. As for "NewSpace and commercialism" being "all about business," that is, in essense, what I was saying. The "gap crisis" isn't about the space company end, it's about the budget. And, once again, show me the money. We'll see what happens with this bill. I will not believe any of this is going to happen, until a bill is passed, with budgetary appropriations in hand. When that happens, I'll review my collection of metaphorical hats and decide which (if any) of them is an appropriate snack. Right now, this bill is just so much political hot air. And even if the bill passes, I will point backward to 2004 and remind everyone what happened to all that hot air, proposed by the President and passed on by Congress. How do we suppose this bill will look from the vantagepoint of 2017 (one year after the 2016 Presidential election)?

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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!").

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.

Quote
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?

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.

CLB22
This 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.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
The following is only my opinion.
It might be a good sign if the members of a commercial interest on here are protesting.
Not at all.  Commercial Space // New Space // Orbital // Space X are all funded adequately in both bills.  Commercial space companies are interested only in the opportunity which both bills afford.  SpaceX’s private bank roll is impressive.
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.
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.
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?"
I believe so, since I don't believe the "sides" of this are Democrat / Republican.
I agree.  If “President” McCain would have proposed this his “good friends” from the senate would have asked what he was thinking.  However, I am not sure this would have been Mr. McCain’s approach to NASA.  This is my opinion.
Some people here have talked about how it is “interesting” or “baffling” to see the political right to be fighting for more spending when it comes to NASA.  I would humbly suggest to you that many of us on the right do not view NASA as a jobs program.  Many on the right have a neo-conservative view of NASA.  This is a national security issue.  While yes, we do get to wave American flags and cheer at launches and recoveries, what concerns many people on the right is our national security to conduct HSF.
Another point that some on the right make is that NASA, when it isn’t wasting money, actually gives the US tax payer the best bang for the buck.  NASA is still riding on the coattails of spinoff technologies from the 70s and 80s.
“NASA” is one of the few programs on the hill that can bring a smile to most people’s face, regardless if they have a center in their state or district or if they are a republican or democrat or a liberal or a conserviative.  There are those on both the very far fringe right and the very far fringe left who could care less, but they are on the fringe.  The hill is so poisoned right now, it might actually be NASA that could bring some decorum back...
I do not subscribe to “the plan” put forth by the president.  What I do know is that over HALF of the TARP money passed last year of the stimulus bill is still unspent.  Depending on whose numbers you choose to accept, it is somewhere between 350 BILLION and 475 BILLION dollars.  Additionally, some financial institutions repaid their TARP money when they could or decided they did not like the rules that went along with accepting the TARP funds.  Bottom line, the US government can fund NASA if we really want to.
I wish I could do this but I cannot, someone needs to get the DIRECT/Jupiter word out in a public forum.  Maybe this is a political tactic that is waiting to be used.  I am not in a position to know.  What I do know is that the language used in Section 7 (b) and (d) screams DIRECT/Jupiter.  Maybe this is to satisfy Mr. Shelby and Ms. Giffords, but either way, there is enough reference material on DIRECT to have a legitimate debate if we should use this architecture.  It is my opinion, and I only speak for me, that we should.
This really blew me away, on page 37, Section 9 (g):
Quote from: Section 9 (g)
1 (g) NO FISCAL YEAR LIMITATION ON FUNDING.—
2 All funds appropriated pursuant to this section shall re-
3 main available until expended.

I hope Administrator Bolden pulls in the financial reigns on some of his centers and cuts the pork.  The NASA history is legendary and so is its bureaucracy. 

<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.

As someone brought up earlier, this bill will need co-sponsors; particularly on the Democratic side of the isle.  The Democrats have commanding majorities (by the numbers anyway) in both the upper and lower chambers of congress.  The Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, can use her privilege as speaker to bring the bill to a vote (GOOD LUCK); however, the only thing anyone seems to be concerned about is healthcare right now and I, my OWN personal view, don’t see anything moving through either chamber quickly.  I could see the Senate getting their version through first (as whacky as this sounds).

Maybe 51D sees it differently.

VR
RS327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
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?"
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.
It was endorsed by some Democrats and Republicans, but then the President and Congress didn't necessarily appropriate all the money authorized.  Broader issues and/or broader partisan politics had more influence on what happened -- like with FY 2007, which was funded only on a continuing resolution basis.  The authorizing (sub)committees we saw last week, with largely the same bipartisan members, have made the argument for multiple years that NASA had too much on its plate with too little money to do it -- but in the end Congresses (some Republican, some Democrat) and Presidents (some Democrat, some Republican) as a whole have not changed appropriations.

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
CLB22
This 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.

What is my opinion? The numbers I posted above? Numbers don't lie. If you don't add up to 10bn over the next 5 years, you will have to take 10bn for Shuttle extension from somewhere. And if you don't add even more, you will have to take from other line-items for HLV development. It's simple math.

Again, what claim of HLV by 2020 are you referring to. I asked Chris the same question, I haven't talked about HLV by 2020 or 2030 or at any other time on this thread. Above I said "HLV in 8 years" which would be 2018 as mentioned in the bill as the first possible BEO date.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
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?"
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.

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. They want to "perfect it"...
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 03:49 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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

STS was shut down by a decision of President George W. Bush in January 2004.



And the environment of today is 100% different and you know it. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 598
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.

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.
Agreed. Unfortunately this bill is "jobs first, NASA, exploration and taxpayer money later".
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
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.
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.

You are right he used the word "perfect" it. I was going from memory. But I wouldn't take his word too literally either. He simply meant they would be changing it. The more important question is whether he supports this new bill.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 03:54 pm by yg1968 »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
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.
Disagree; the argument about broadly-scoped appropriations, the lack of a line-item veto, and the tiny relative size of NASA's budget means that Presidents aren't going to veto a CJS or an even larger appropriations bill on the basis of NASA's numbers.

In Congress, setting aside variables like gerrymandering, for example if you look at the districts where KSC or JSC are located, they change between D and R; whichever party they belong to, those representatives have supported minimizing "The Gap" and/or extending Shuttle.  You also have representatives like Ralph Hall, a longtime Texas Democrat who changed parties recently.  His support for NASA is arguably stronger than his party loyalty.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
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 NASA FY2011 Budget plan.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 04:05 pm by yg1968 »

Offline jarmumd

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 35
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.
Agreed. Unfortunately this bill is "jobs first, NASA, exploration and taxpayer money later".

Without any sarcasm intended, the only solution then would be to put ISS into the drink.  I mean what would have happened after 2016-2020?  Where would commercial go then?  Supplying crew to a moon mission? NEO? Mars?  The only one we can do with any certainty is the moon (as far as developing things like rad shielding et al).  Without a clearly defined mission, there is no point for any of this existing - may save a lot more money to just cut our losses, put ISS in the ocean and do science/exploration one Atlas at a time until we find something the taxpayers will fund to explore...

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
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.

Well that's partially true.

1) There are only certain quantities of items available for launch.
2) You don't need them all at once.
3) You have limited space on ISS.

But what shuttle does provide is DOWNMASS capability. It also provides a continuous 'back-up' if you will if CRS doesn't come through in time. It can also launch the heavy stuff. We still have to wait and see what NASA comes back with on ORUs available on the ground. I think we're going to be surprised what got left off the manifests due to launch/time constraints. We also have an opportunity to manufacture a new blanket box for solar panels: one of our weakest links. We can also launch the demonstrator VASIMR to ISS in the PLB on a later flight. Save the near launches for more logistics.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.
Agreed. Unfortunately this bill is "jobs first, NASA, exploration and taxpayer money later".

That's not true.  So ISS is going to fine?  When will the CRS flight be?  Surely you can tell us.  Right?  After all, they're just about a year or so behind schedule now....

If ISS fails, so does everything else, technically, politically and economically so quit with the over-dramatic subjective statements.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
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.
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?

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692

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.

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.

Agreed. This was a very well thought out Bill.

(funny how much of it is similar to my letter writing campaign...hehe)

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Politics is the art of compromise. This bill might come closest to satisfying all side of the issue, with the exception of the Alabamans.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
What you said that I responded to.  Sorry for not using the "reply with quote" function up there:

...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....

Then what I said:

...NewSpace has got plenty to do, and plenty of money to make.  Their sense of urgency, I think, will continue under the proposed bill...

Then what you said:

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? ...

I'm a mite confused about the clarification you're trying to make.  I don't think that the "urgency" changes all that much.  NewSpace will pretty much still be motivated to supply ISS, although if disaster strikes them, I don't know.  I guess I'm "assuming" that they'll succeed.  And if the shuttle keeps going, again with the caveat against disaster, I'm thinking there will be new missions beyond the current manifest which could possibly support lunar or martian or NEO missions.

I think if commercial succeeds, then that could liberate the shuttle for new work, again, under the assumption we would use what we have.  That's why I don't get the debate going on as if the shuttle, if extended, could only be used for resupply, thus negating commercial.

Chris' is a salient question:  How fast would this bill, if enacted, would the processes happen?  And what would those new missions be, if the shuttle were relieved of cargo flights to the ISS?

There is substantial debate, as pointed out in the article, about what "re-certification" means.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
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.
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?

The Shuttle extension is more a question of whether there is money for it. The appropriators are left with the tough choice of what not to fund. I don't think anybody likes the gap but they have to decide whether to appropriate an extra $2B per year to prevent the gap from happenning. My personal view is that the extra $2B will not be appropriated. The appropriators will be able to simply say that they don't have the money for it and that the President didn't ask for this increase anyways. But I hope to be wrong on this.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0