Author Topic: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV  (Read 300129 times)

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
The Shuttle extension has required additional funding in any scenario in which it has been presented so far. This isn't spin, it's a fact.

But it also has the advantage of being an already flying capability. No development time required, means you can service ISS (which is what the shuttle was meant to do) and deliver crew without any gap. The question is what is better - getting the funding to extend shuttle or let it end in 2011 and develop a SDHLV from that time on?
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 06:41 pm by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Anything is possible if you are willing to delay the next generation rocket. But so far that option is not seriously being considered by either Congress or the President.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 06:47 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Nevertheless it is an option and it does have it's advantages, as well as disadvantages. It delays the next generation rocket in order to retain an uninterrupted capability to deliver crew and cargo to ISS.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Chris Bergin

Anything is possible if you are willing to delay the next generation rocket. But so far that option is not seriously being considered by either Congress or the President.

The FY2011 Proposal does exactly that, delays the next gen rocket. And if we're talking about this obscure "game changing" vehicle, then what was Mr Bolden talking about when he said the $9 billion (plus $2.5 billion to pay up the contracts via disposal) for CxP was, quote "a good investment" - which I find ironic when people are gasping at the price of extending the one vehicle we actually have flying on operational missions.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 06:56 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline fredm6463

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • Me at nozzle of SRB at KSC Visitor Complex
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
"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."

I don't think so.  NewSpace has got plenty to do, and plenty of money to make.  Their sense of urgency, I think, will continue under the proposed bill since they would be virtually certain to be able to send cargo up to ISS for less than the shuttle costs, and therefore it's to their advantage to hustle.

The bill seems pretty good to me, at least on a first read.

In the opening words of the article, Chris pointed out how Griffin sorta played the part of Brutus:  he was one of the first to stab the shuttle program, right under Bush's nose.  I don't get why the new administrator seems to want to make the final stab at killing the shuttle.

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? 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.

That's exactly what NASA management, NASA engineering and the contractors did to cause both the Challenger and Columbia disasters.

Offline Kitspacer

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • N.California
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
If Bolden approves a compromise (which I think is what he's planning to do) what's Garver going to do about it? She may badmouth the shuttle all she wants, but unless I misunderstood something Bolden is the administrator.

Shuttle extension isn't a compromise. It requires additionnal funding. If the extra funding isn't there, there will be no extension.

What you did, is just called "spin" in order to advance whatever your goals are.

There are clearly near-term strategic interests that have to be paid some attention.  Shuttle offers that possibility and, as such, can be part of any "compromise".  People need to stop looking at this as so black and white.

You're right. The bill is "all things to all people" for a reason. The sponsors have to be able to attract supporters to the bill. One of the most important things to recognize about Shuttle extension is, it's very much a case of status quo ante. And not just ante-Obama, but ante-ESAS, as well, even ante-VSE. In some sense, it's a big, fat reset button.

Since Garver has no qualifications to justify her appointment at NASA, it must be her political affiliations that indicate something of a "watchdog" posture - keeping Bolden and/or successors toeing the "Party Line" etc. It'll be interesting to see if this indicates who truly holds the reins at NASA.... :P
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 07:11 pm by Kitspacer »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Anything is possible if you are willing to delay the next generation rocket. But so far that option is not seriously being considered by either Congress or the President.

The FY2011 Proposal does exactly that, delays the next gen rocket. And if we're talking about this obscure "game changing" vehicle, then what was Mr Bolden talking about when he said the $9 billion (plus $2.5 billion to pay up the contracts via disposal) for CxP was, quote "a good investment" - which I find ironic when people are gasping at the price of extending the one vehicle we actually have flying on operational missions.

Are you saying that you are favouring Shuttle extension, commercial crew in 2016 and a HLV in 2025-2030?
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 07:05 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Kitspacer

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • N.California
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

STS re-entries have all been successful except for one (Columbia; with known ET debris striking the orbiters, which I am surprised the Roger's Commission investigating the Challenger accident in 1986, never considered a serious threat to the orbiter).


STS-27 did not kill anyone so I guess no one figured it needed fixin'.  :-(  But yes, with all the stuff they did uncover why not foam shedding?

We're assuming of course that it actually WAS the chunk of foam that did the damage. Remember the elevated temperatures in the undercarriage well: may have been something else...in 1/2MxVsquared terms quite possibly. Why the possibility was dismissed; because re-entry leading-edge wing loading exceeded likely impact loading from foam strikes?  ???
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 07:10 pm by Kitspacer »

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
then what was Mr Bolden talking about when he said the $9 billion (plus $2.5 billion to pay up the contracts via disposal) for CxP was, quote "a good investment"

Bolden was just appeasing Congressmen. Most of the 9 billion will not yield any benefit in the future. Bolden has given the example of heatshield technology developed for Orion that might be reused by other companies. That's what he meant with "good investment".
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline dad2059

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • Dad2059's Webzine of Science-Fiction, Science Fact and Esoterica
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
Are you saying that you are favouring Shuttle extension, commercial crew in 2016 and a HLV in 2025-2030?

Where have you been? Asking Chris if he supports shuttle extension is like asking him if he supports breathing air!  ;D
NASA needs some good ol' fashioned 'singularity tech'

Offline Chris Bergin

Anything is possible if you are willing to delay the next generation rocket. But so far that option is not seriously being considered by either Congress or the President.

The FY2011 Proposal does exactly that, delays the next gen rocket. And if we're talking about this obscure "game changing" vehicle, then what was Mr Bolden talking about when he said the $9 billion (plus $2.5 billion to pay up the contracts via disposal) for CxP was, quote "a good investment" - which I find ironic when people are gasping at the price of extending the one vehicle we actually have flying on operational missions.

Are you saying that you are favouring Shuttle extension, commercial crew in 2016 and a HLV in 2025-2030?

I'm saying the claims an extension would delay SD HLV to 2025-2030 are incorrect, but let's assume your correct for the purpose of making a point, as the alternative (FY2011 proposal) is: Paying Russia to ferry the occasional US astro to the ISS, commercial crew in 2015-2016 (not certain), and "Game Changing" HLV *maybe* heading into the 2025-2030 scenario.

"My" preference still comes out top. Someone get me the President's phone number ;)
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 07:21 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089

STS re-entries have all been successful except for one (Columbia; with known ET debris striking the orbiters, which I am surprised the Roger's Commission investigating the Challenger accident in 1986, never considered a serious threat to the orbiter).


STS-27 did not kill anyone so I guess no one figured it needed fixin'.  :-(  But yes, with all the stuff they did uncover why not foam shedding?

We're assuming of course that it actually WAS the chunk of foam that did the damage.
On STS-27, it wasn't ET foam that did the tile damage.  Discussed here more than once, should be search-able.

Offline phantomdj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
  • Standing in the Saturn V nozzle
  • Merritt Island, Fl
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 5
I just have a fundamentally different vision for NASA than others. I believe it is not necessary to have a 100mt S-HLV, not now, not in 2030. That's one thing.

No one is asking for that now. A SDHLV (J-120/J-130) would be a 50mt to 75mt vehicle that can lift crew and/or cargo to the ISS and, in time when money is available, scale up to a 100+ mt vehicle (J-24x) if necessary for futher BEO missions.

Quote
Another thing is that I believe technology development and R&D do have a specific purpose BEYOND just merely supporting old-school chemical propulsion BEO flights and 100mt S-HLVs. I believe they can replace the way Apollo worked in a manner we don't believe it is possible right now. I believe with new technology we can do exploration cheaper, better, more sustainable and quicker than with the old approach of using large rockets and chemical fuels and heavy NASA involvement in designing and operating vehicles.

I think we all agree that BEO to Mars will need "game changing" technology but there are things we can do in the meantime before that technology comes to fruition.  Having a HLV in this decade and not 2 or 3 decades out allow us to do shake-down flights around the moon or to NEO and EXPLORE while we wait for "game changing" technology.

Quote
And that is also why I think "inspiring kids" is what the new FY2011 budget will do eventually in a much better way than this proposed amendment bill which will, rest assured, leave us in LEO for the next 20 years due to funding issues and high operational costs for maintaining Orion and a S-HLV down the line. In my opinion in 10-15 years we will have realistic BEO reference missions of a type that folks right now say just can't be baselined because the technology isn't available.

This is where we really disagree.  As one that was an inspired kid from the golden age of spaceflight (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo) it was this new exploring that inspired us. With a young daughter today, I can tell you that circling to earth like NASCAR is not inspiring kids today despite the fact that we have the ISS up there.  EXPLORING BEO is what will inspire kids today and the FY2011 budget does not do that until 2025 or 2030.  Having a J-130 by 2014 and a J-24x by 2018 allows exploration sooner to inspire our children.


Quote
I understand that people like to take the approach of using proven and existing hardware only, that fuel depots, high isp in-space propulsion, SEP, NEP, commercial spacecraft, inflatable habs, semi-automatic robotics, 180mt Mars surface reference missions instead of 1200mt Mars surface reference missions etc. on the critical path are a thing that frightens people.

No, I would say most of us would like to see most of that but you will not have any of it for 2 or 3 decades with the FY2011 budget.

Quote
But to really get back on topic, the three question we all need to (objectively!!!) ask ourselves with regard to this new amendment bill are as follows:

1. Is it likely that NASA will get a 3bn+ per year increase in the budget as outlined in the bill in the current economic environment?
2. If not, where will the funds for STS extension come from if not from newly proposed line-items in the FY2011 budget?
3. If NASA does not get the 3bn+ per year budget but just the 1bn-1.5b+ per year budget increase as proposed, where will the funds for STS extension, HLV development and Orion come from if not from technology line-items, commercial crew and robotic precursor programs?


I will let people with more insight than me answer these questions.  However, it is my understanding that a SDHLV (J130) can be done in 36 months with the existing budget and that shuttle extension only needs 2 or 3 years of extra money to cover the gap (yes 5 years would be nice but…).

As Robert Crippen, former astronaut who served as pilot aboard shuttle Columbia on the first shuttle and past director of Kennedy Space Center said, "Yes, it costs money, but that money is available in the current $19 billion budget proposal by redirecting some of the funding from other programs…This would remove our total reliance on the Russians and keep that funding in the United States. It would allow us to continue to operate the ISS in a more productive manner until one of these commercial entities proved they had the wherewithal to launch our crews…It is not a matter of can we afford it. We cannot afford not to."
SpaceX has become what NASA used to be in the '60's, innovative and driven.

Offline Kitspacer

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • N.California
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Excellent article, although I'm rather concerned by this part of the bill:

Quote
.... and the Ares-1 Crew Launch Vehicle, to the extent that such elements are determined to be cost effective and operationally effective.

Oh Dear,
the reason why all this angst is being expended. I think considering it's very real limitations, the one thing that needs to be dropped is precisely that: $9billion, six years and an Iffy test flight - to be Charitable... :P
I don't think so. >:(

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
then what was Mr Bolden talking about when he said the $9 billion (plus $2.5 billion to pay up the contracts via disposal) for CxP was, quote "a good investment"

Bolden was just appeasing Congressmen. Most of the 9 billion will not yield any benefit in the future. Bolden has given the example of heatshield technology developed for Orion that might be reused by other companies. That's what he meant with "good investment".

But it could, and that's the point.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
As Robert Crippen, former astronaut who served as pilot aboard shuttle Columbia on the first shuttle and past director of Kennedy Space Center said, "Yes, it costs money, but that money is available in the current $19 billion budget proposal by redirecting some of the funding from other programs…This would remove our total reliance on the Russians and keep that funding in the United States. It would allow us to continue to operate the ISS in a more productive manner until one of these commercial entities proved they had the wherewithal to launch our crews…It is not a matter of can we afford it. We cannot afford not to."

The money is available within the total NASA budget, that wasn't my point. I said that you need take away from other line-item, be it technology development, R&D, science, robotics or commercial crew to get an HLV developed + STS extended + Orion. There is no other way around it. If your priorities are as such, you need to also cut the alternative programs proposed in the FY2011. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

And no, this bill that is proposed isn't a compromise between two different camps, it's a completely different alternative. The budget increase it wants won't happen (+1.4bn in FY2011; +2.2bn in FY2012 OVER the already scheduled increase) and because it won't happen a decision has to be made - should we develop payloads and the technology for BEO payloads and rely on existing rockets or some moderate modifications of them or should we develop rockets and keep STS running for a few more years? That's the decision we need to make, we can go one way or another, but realistically, given budget constraints, we can't do both. I think we should concentrate on the payloads and the technology for the payloads, because if we do not, we won't be able to launch anything with our shiny S-HLVs.

P.S. ISS can be operated without the Shuttle. People seem to forget we already did that once. And since the days of 2003-2005, 2 new cargo vehicles have come online and 2 additional will come online likely next year. With STS-135 we could even wait for the first CRS vehicle to have its IOC until 2012 without a problem.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 07:52 pm by clb22 »
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
then what was Mr Bolden talking about when he said the $9 billion (plus $2.5 billion to pay up the contracts via disposal) for CxP was, quote "a good investment"

Bolden was just appeasing Congressmen. Most of the 9 billion will not yield any benefit in the future. Bolden has given the example of heatshield technology developed for Orion that might be reused by other companies. That's what he meant with "good investment".

But it could, and that's the point.

Yes, most of the money could have been an investment that would be used further (not sure if I would characterise it as a "good investment"). I don't think that is really disputed. 5segment SRBs can of course be used on an HLV. Orion can continue and J2x and Ares I upper stage development also can continue. It's a question of whether we want to determine the path forward based on sunk cost or based on what NASA should be doing in the future.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline Namechange User

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

Chris, thank you for your detailed answer. And please rest assured, I respect your opinion and the opinions of others. But I still have to disagree on the necessity of HLV development, on the necessity to take over most of the Shuttle workforce to another program (which believe me, won't be possible no matter what Shuttle derived HLV follow on program there would be) and on the necessity to do BEO flights the way we did in the 1960s.

At the end, I just have a fundamentally different vision for NASA than others. I believe it is not necessary to have a 100mt S-HLV, not now, not in 2030. That's one thing. Another thing is that I believe technology development and R&D do have a specific purpose BEYOND just merely supporting old-school chemical propulsion BEO flights and 100mt S-HLVs. I believe they can replace the way Apollo worked in a manner we don't believe it is possible right now. I believe with new technology we can do exploration cheaper, better, more sustainable and quicker than with the old approach of using large rockets and chemical fuels and heavy NASA involvement in designing and operating vehicles. And that is also why I think "inspiring kids" is what the new FY2011 budget will do eventually in a much better way than this proposed amendment bill which will, rest assured, leave us in LEO for the next 20 years due to funding issues and high operational costs for maintaining Orion and a S-HLV down the line. In my opinion in 10-15 years we will have realistic BEO reference missions of a type that folks right now say just can't be baselined because the technology isn't available.

I understand that people like to take the approach of using proven and existing hardware only, that fuel depots, high isp in-space propulsion, SEP, NEP, commercial spacecraft, inflatable habs, semi-automatic robotics, 180mt Mars surface reference missions instead of 1200mt Mars surface reference missions etc. on the critical path are a thing that frightens people. And I admit, this path is the risky one, it's a path that might not get us straight to success down a predefined, totally fletched-out neat path, but for me that this path puts all the above things into the critical path and assumes risk again is the actual exciting thing that NASA will now be doing. And the risk is well worth it, because due to that risk NASA will have a sustained exploration future in contrast to using super large government designed rockets and chemical fuels which IMHO doesn't have a future for deep space missions.

But to really get back on topic, the three question we all need to (objectively!!!) ask ourselves with regard to this new amendment bill are as follows:

1. Is it likely that NASA will get a 3bn+ per year increase in the budget as outlined in the bill in the current economic environment?
2. If not, where will the funds for STS extension come from if not from newly proposed line-items in the FY2011 budget?
3. If NASA does not get the 3bn+ per year budget but just the 1bn-1.5b+ per year budget increase as proposed, where will the funds for STS extension, HLV development and Orion come from if not from technology line-items, commercial crew and robotic precursor programs?

I have given an answer to all these 3 points above and I remain convinced these are sensible answers and that the answer to 1. is absolutely clear and that the answers to 2. and 3. mean that there are no funds whatsoever left for anything aside from STS extension + HLV development + Orion development in the next 5 years (unless we start cutting Science and Aeronautics etc. too) if we go down this road. We will be stuck with the operating costs of an HLV and Orion without being able to use them for anything except LEO flights, which will go hand in hand with the next crisis of NASA with Congress starting finger pointing again.

With the above statement, I have to wonder how this fits with your tag at the bottom of every post you make, "Spirals, not circles". 

Sprial development and operations are taking what you have and building on it in incremental steps.  What you advocate above, while part of it is necessary, is not a spiral but stopping everything hoping and assuming that we will get something out of it and then someone arbitrarily and subjectively deciding it is "now good enough" and "sustainable" and then we will go somewhere.  In my opinion and experience that is a very bad position to be in.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Sprial development and operations are taking what you have and building on it in incremental steps.  What you advocate above, while part of it is necessary, is not a spiral but stopping everything hoping and assuming that we will get something out of it and then someone arbitrarily and subjectively deciding it is "now good enough" and "sustainable" and then we will go somewhere.  In my opinion and experience that is a very bad position to be in.

Spiral development works this way:

Phase 1: LEO vehicle development, once you got one, you just finished a spiral.
Phase 2: BEO vehicle development based on LEO vehicle development.
Phase 1a: use of existing rockets (10-20mt) for cargo and crew
Phase 2a: use of modified existing rockets for the first BEO flights (30-35mt)
Phase 1b: demonstrate advanced in-space propulsion and in-space technology in LEO
Phase 2b: demonstrate advanced in-space propulsion and in-space technology for the first BEO flights
Phase 3: build a mission hab for longer BEO flights
Phase 3a: further develop your existing rockets for assembly of spacecrafts for longer BEO flights (50mt)
Phase 3b: baseline advanced in-sapce propulsion for longer BEO flights
etc. etc.

It does not work like this:
Build a "one size fits it all" expensive BEO vehicle and a "one size fits it all" S-HLV for the next 30-40 years of exploration.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
It does not work like this:
Build a "one size fits it all" expensive BEO vehicle and a "one size fits it all" S-HLV for the next 30-40 years of exploration.

You do realise that is not what is being proposed here, don't you?
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1