Author Topic: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV  (Read 300162 times)

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • 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.

Online Chris Bergin

Here's a question to keep this thread on track, as opposed to personal perferences (unavoidable, I have my own too ;D).

How long - even on the fastest timeline - can these Bill/Act processes take to enactment?

There's an important factor here, time is desperately running out (some would argue it already has - but it's close regardless), when it comes to shuttle.

And that leads me to Peter's point. That this still has some use to provide some documentation for Congress to find a middle ground.

I won't pretend to understand politics, so input would be appreciated.
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 clb22

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

At 2 MPLM flights per year with the Shuttle, NASA won't even need its allocation at HTV or ATV for full utilisation of the ISS, and it definitely will require CRS flights. With Shuttle extension to 2015, it's immaterial whether the Shuttle costs are much more than CRS costs per mt, it just wouldn't make any sense to fly any CRS flights at all because you don't need their cargo capacity.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
The bad news is that we are spending all our money on rockets or Shuttle. But the President should have know that an HLV in 2025 wouldn't be acceptable to Congress. The HLV needs to be ready for 2020 at the latest. The President will have to compromise on the HLV.

Thank God, Congress hasn't done space architecture in the past, otherwise NASA would never have gotten a single human being into orbit.

Anyway, let's dissect the claim of having an HLV ready by 2025 or 2020 or at all. Where does this come from? Well, this wasn't plan until 2005, at least noone was talking about 100mt+ S-HLVs. Before 2005, most people agreed it would not be a sustainable path to base an architecture around large S-HLVs, so architectures were based on 20mt, 50mt and maybe 60-70mt rockets. We need to finally get back to common sense that was available before 2005 and Congress needs to do that too. An HLV sure is important, but it sure doesn't need to be a 100mt to LEO vehicle and an HLV without allocating a lot MORE money to payloads for said HLV is a track towards not doing anything BEO.

I was saying that 2025 is too far down the road. The 2025 date comes from Bolden in a press conference. The 2020 date was the year that Ares V was supposed to be ready and is also possibly the year that the ISS will get de-orbited. As far as how big the HLV needs to be, nobody seems to agree on this. Some believe that 50m ton is enough. Other believe that anything under 90mt-100mt ton isn't really an HLV.   
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 03:10 pm by yg1968 »

Offline clb22

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

I was saying that 2025 is too far down the road. The 2025 date comes from Bolden in a press conference.

Not to be picky, but I doubt Bolden specifically said "we are planning to haven an HLV ready by 2025". He consistently said "we don't know yet" when asked about dates, but he still said that BEO flights might get done a lot quicker than under the old plan. So, I doubt the 2025 figure. Do you remember which press conference that was?
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
"2025" for HLV is based on Bolden's comments in a variety of press conferences and appearances now, where he has consistently said that with the President's Budget plan, an HLV should be ready between 2020 and 2030.

2025 is simply the mid-point in that range.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 03:11 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Online jarmumd

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 35
... 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.

Offline dad2059

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • Dad2059's Webzine of Science-Fiction, Science Fact and Esoterica
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
After reading all of this rhetoric for the past month, it seemed to me that nothing was going to get through the "pluses and minuses" and the extremes of both sides of the FY2011 issue. I was afraid everything was going to be de-funded and I still have a fear of that happening.

Actually, I liked the FY2011 Budget as is; everything should be privatized as much as possible and advanced propulsion tech should be pushed to the fore, it's been too long.

One thing did concern me; How was the ISS going to be supported without the proper logistics now that it was extended to 2020?

Sure, extending the shuttle short-term is good, but will it continue to be funded without cutting into the advanced propulsion and science line items?

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 the question to be fair and relevant to the topic at hand.
NASA needs some good ol' fashioned 'singularity tech'

Offline Jason Davies

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 75
Well I think it's a great plan. People have said it before, but we're retiring the shuttle  at a time the ISS is extending. Makes no sense.

Offline sewand

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
The bad news is that we are spending all our money on rockets or Shuttle. But the President should have know that an HLV in 2025 wouldn't be acceptable to Congress. The HLV needs to be ready for 2020 at the latest. The President will have to compromise on the HLV.

Thank God, Congress hasn't done space architecture in the past, otherwise NASA would never have gotten a single human being into orbit.

Anyway, let's dissect the claim of having an HLV ready by 2025 or 2020 or at all. Where does this come from? Well, this wasn't plan until 2005, at least noone was talking about 100mt+ S-HLVs. Before 2005, most people agreed it would not be a sustainable path to base an architecture around large S-HLVs, so architectures were based on 20mt, 50mt and maybe 60-70mt rockets. We need to finally get back to common sense that was available before 2005 and Congress needs to do that too. An HLV sure is important, but it sure doesn't need to be a 100mt to LEO vehicle and an HLV without allocating a lot MORE money to payloads for said HLV is a track towards not doing anything BEO.

I wouldn't say that's much of an argument.  Prior to 2001, no one was talking about doing exploration with EELV-class vehicles - it was assumed to be heavy lift.  That no more invalidates EELV than your argument invalidates HLV.

It all comes down to cost comparisons.  Get a realistic comparison of an HLV-centric architecture (aka DIRECT) against an EELV architecture.   From everything I've read, that comparison was not done by Bolden prior to this budget's announcement, unless you count Augustine and he said they all come in around the same time and budget.  Let's not assume one method is cheaper than another until a serious effort has been to compare mission, launch rates, and risk.  In particular:
How we address gap closure, if at all?
How do we address retention of key workforce skills?
What is the future of ISS, up to and after 2020?
What do we want to do for exploration?  (Moon, flexible path, etc)
When do we want to do exploration?  (2020, 2030, ...)



Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
"2025" for HLV is based on Bolden's comments in a variety of press conferences and appearances now, where he has consistently said that with the President's Budget plan, an HLV should be ready between 2020 and 2030.

2025 is simply the mid-point in that range.

Ross.

Yes that is what I meant. Bolden mentionned this during the press conference linked below (but he wasn't entirely clear on the exact date and he said that they hadn't yet fixed one but the mid-2020s was a reasonable estimate for an HLV at this point):

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20364.msg537979#msg537979
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 03:23 pm by yg1968 »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • 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.

Offline phantomdj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
  • Standing in the Saturn V nozzle
  • Merritt Island, Fl
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 5

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.


Yes, like keeping the cork on their rocket during testing!  Tongue firmly in cheek.
SpaceX has become what NASA used to be in the '60's, innovative and driven.

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Yes that is what I meant. Bolden mentionned this during the press conference linked below (but he wasn't entirely clear on the exact date and he said that they hadn't yet fixed one but the mid-2020 was a reasonable estimate for an HLV at this point):

Plus, he also said that, while he wouldn't baseline it, the new technology programs might get us to destinations beyond Earth orbit a lot sooner than the old plan. So, to sum up, there just aren't any hard dates yet. It could be 2020, it could be 2025, it could be no date at all for an HLV. They need to formulate the date first and they need to ask themselves if 100mt vehicles are the way to go at all.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
I believe CAIB's recommendation was aimed at a program which was going to continue operating "normally" well beyond 2010.   I don't personally consider a plan for just three flights after that, as the same thing.

There are a variety of options which don't require re-cert for such a small number of flights going beyond that date.

I personally wonder why they can't simply be flown with a waiver and be done with it without requiring exorbitant additional costs.

I see no real-world reason why a Shuttle which is considered safe to fly on 30th September, 2010 suddenly needs re-certification if the launch date slips 24 hours to 1st October.   That indicates an arbitrary date and I would suggest that it is actually the choices which led to the fixing of that date which need to be re-examined in the light of these particular circumstances.

Assuming the vehicles are given the appropriate level of care, and as long as SSP continue to demonstrate their excellent record of due-diligence which everyone here has witnessed since STS-114, I think this re-cert issue is one which can, and should, be altered, or given a waiver.

YMMV.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 03:30 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline dad2059

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • Dad2059's Webzine of Science-Fiction, Science Fact and Esoterica
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
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.
NASA needs some good ol' fashioned 'singularity tech'

Offline phantomdj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
  • Standing in the Saturn V nozzle
  • Merritt Island, Fl
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 5
I believe CAIB's recommendation was aimed at a program which was going to continue operating "normally" well beyond 2010.   There are a variety of options which don't require re-cert for such a small number of flights going beyond that date.

I personally wonder why they can't simply be flown with a waiver and be done with it.

I see no real-world reason why a Shuttle which is considered safe to fly on 30th September, 2010 suddenly needs re-certification if the launch date slips 24 hours to 1st October.

Assuming the vehicles are given the appropriate level of care, and as long as SSP continue to demonstrate their excellent record of due-diligence which everyone here has witnessed since STS-114, I think this re-cert issue is one which can, and should, be given a waiver.

YMMV.

Ross.

Robert Crippen, former astronaut who served as pilot aboard shuttle Columbia on the first shuttle and past director of Kennedy Space Center make a good argument to keep the shuttles flying.

"The decision to cancel our exploration program, Constellation, and continue with the retirement of the space shuttle makes no sense…I strongly support pushing commercial space capabilities. But planning to use that commercial capability as the only means to launch our crews is foolish. We’d be extremely lucky to develop that within a decade."

"Some say the shuttle is too dangerous. It isn’t, or we wouldn’t still be flying it…Yes, we’ve lost both the Challenger and Columbia, but each time the vehicle has been made safer and program management improved…Yes, we’ve shut down some of the manufacturing capability for the shuttle, but that can be turned around a lot faster than we can develop a new vehicle."

"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."

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100303/COLUMNISTS0205/100302017/1138/opinion/Robert+Crippen++Keep+the+shuttle+flying

SpaceX has become what NASA used to be in the '60's, innovative and driven.

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Yes, like keeping the cork on their rocket during testing!  Tongue firmly in cheek.
Cork is rocket science too... ;) and it's hard, just like this shows:
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Well:
THANK GOD for Kay Baily Hutchinson :D :D . Now at least we have something that IMHO is on the right track.
HOWEVER:
1. It must be passed
2. It must get support (not a problem as I think Nelson, shelby, and others will jump on this and back it up)
3. If it is passed and enacted Bolden and or Garver (in the unlikely probability that she still works at NASA after this is over)  cannot muck it up. If Bolden really wanted to he could probably muck this up after enactment to the point that it doesn't work. But I don't know what he will do.
4. This is progress in the right direction IMHO. And no, the tech items do not ALL have to be zeroed out for this. That is because under this bill the budget goes UP another 3.5 billion dollars ON TOP OF THE FY2011 INCREASE!. Thats like 21 billion per year! More than enough, in my mind, to do the most key IMHO, tech development: an advandced in space propulsion system, namely an uprated VASIMIR, which would eventually launch on the uprated SDHLV (j 246 or j246 SH or another sdhlv config).
As to the robotic missions and the other tech development, I am not sad to see that go at all. Rad shielding tech development is an issue, however, but I beleive that can be worked in and tested in the future when needed. The key piece of tech development, the advandced in space propulsion, should remain in place. The other stuff should be cut and the money put towards building something (sdhlv, orion, ect) that can get us there and closing the gap (STS extension to 2015).

So you could say I am "in the middle" between the two extremes. Some tech development, sdhlv ONLY because its very cheap (relativley). Although, lockmart's hlv proposal using an ACES on an atlas is very interesting.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Bernie Roehl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
And if SpaceX or OSC fail (which ignores ULA, whom stands a far better chance)

... of failing?   :-)

Seriously, though, I don't think any of the firms are likely to fail at their stated goals.  All three stand an excellent chance of success when it comes to launch vehicles, and two of them (ULA and SpaceX) will certainly be able to field human-rated LV's.  Atlas V and Delta IV are of course flying already, and can be human-rated by 2013.  Falcon 9 is on the pad, and was designed to be human-rated from the very beginning. 

To me, it's a non-issue -- we will certainly have at least two or three different human-rated launch vehicles, or four if we get an SDLV.  The more interesting question is what spacecraft will fly on them.

Much as I generally like the new proposed budget, I would like to see some money set aside for spacecraft development (particularly Dream Chaser, since SpaceX seems willing to invest it's own money in Dragon, Bigelow seems willing to invest in Orion Lite, and the revised plan clearly intends to fund LM to continue development of Orion).

Speaking of which...

I'm still unclear about the cost of Orion development.  I've heard $15B, I've heard $20B, but I've also heard it'll be flying by 2013.  Based on the newly proposed budget (which has LM's input incorporated into it) there's nowhere near that much being allocated.

(I'm trying to keep this focused on the budget, but it's hard to avoid talking about how the money in the budget will be spent...)

Tags:
 

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