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.
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.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 03/04/2010 02:49 pm"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.
"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.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/04/2010 06:27 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 06:05 pmQuote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/04/2010 05:56 pmIf 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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 06:05 pmQuote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/04/2010 05:56 pmIf 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.
Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/04/2010 05:56 pmIf 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.
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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 06:45 pmAnything 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.
Quote from: fredm6463 on 03/04/2010 06:04 pmSTS 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?
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).
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"
Are you saying that you are favouring Shuttle extension, commercial crew in 2016 and a HLV in 2025-2030?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 06:50 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 06:45 pmAnything 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?
Quote from: MDMoery on 03/04/2010 06:56 pmQuote from: fredm6463 on 03/04/2010 06:04 pmSTS 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.
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.
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?
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.
.... and the Ares-1 Crew Launch Vehicle, to the extent that such elements are determined to be cost effective and operationally effective.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 06:50 pmthen 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".
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."
Quote from: clb22 on 03/04/2010 07:08 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 06:50 pmthen 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.
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.
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.
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.