Quote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:51 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:49 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:48 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:46 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:43 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:41 pmHow long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take? Introduced Mar 3, 2010 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments Reported by Committee Senate Vote House Vote Signed by President Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt.Oh NOW I'm confused. What does my post have to do with "serious doubts over extension"? Sorry for not clarifying. I am under the impression that if it takes "months" and NASA contiues under current *old* plans, too much of the workforce and infrastructure will be removed in prep for the old 2010 retirement date which would invalidiate the chance of an extension, especially one to 2015. Is this correct? Sorry, I got it about a minute later, but didn't delete my post in time, oops!Yeah, months is no good.Lol "Yeah, months is no good." Nope, but it doesnt make it impossible. Just more expensive. Depends on a lot of things. Truth is, can be finished by the end of next week, if it is smooth. If it is not, could take months.Politics is familiar territory for me, as my father was a politician. It is not unheard of for such a maneuver to be done in anticipation of the compromize, and I think this is what is going on here. Orion is still undergoing testing, while Ares I's follow-up tests appear to be shelved, save for the 5-seg SRB. This lends itself to the compromize, J-140SH.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:49 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:48 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:46 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:43 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:41 pmHow long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take? Introduced Mar 3, 2010 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments Reported by Committee Senate Vote House Vote Signed by President Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt.Oh NOW I'm confused. What does my post have to do with "serious doubts over extension"? Sorry for not clarifying. I am under the impression that if it takes "months" and NASA contiues under current *old* plans, too much of the workforce and infrastructure will be removed in prep for the old 2010 retirement date which would invalidiate the chance of an extension, especially one to 2015. Is this correct? Sorry, I got it about a minute later, but didn't delete my post in time, oops!Yeah, months is no good.Lol "Yeah, months is no good." Nope, but it doesnt make it impossible. Just more expensive.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:48 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:46 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:43 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:41 pmHow long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take? Introduced Mar 3, 2010 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments Reported by Committee Senate Vote House Vote Signed by President Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt.Oh NOW I'm confused. What does my post have to do with "serious doubts over extension"? Sorry for not clarifying. I am under the impression that if it takes "months" and NASA contiues under current *old* plans, too much of the workforce and infrastructure will be removed in prep for the old 2010 retirement date which would invalidiate the chance of an extension, especially one to 2015. Is this correct? Sorry, I got it about a minute later, but didn't delete my post in time, oops!Yeah, months is no good.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:46 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:43 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:41 pmHow long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take? Introduced Mar 3, 2010 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments Reported by Committee Senate Vote House Vote Signed by President Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt.Oh NOW I'm confused. What does my post have to do with "serious doubts over extension"? Sorry for not clarifying. I am under the impression that if it takes "months" and NASA contiues under current *old* plans, too much of the workforce and infrastructure will be removed in prep for the old 2010 retirement date which would invalidiate the chance of an extension, especially one to 2015. Is this correct?
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:43 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:41 pmHow long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take? Introduced Mar 3, 2010 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments Reported by Committee Senate Vote House Vote Signed by President Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt.Oh NOW I'm confused. What does my post have to do with "serious doubts over extension"?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:41 pmHow long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take? Introduced Mar 3, 2010 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments Reported by Committee Senate Vote House Vote Signed by President Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt.
How long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take? Introduced Mar 3, 2010 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments Reported by Committee Senate Vote House Vote Signed by President
Depends on a lot of things. Truth is, can be finished by the end of next week, if it is smooth. If it is not, could take months.
I sort of wondered about that. I was under the impression that appropriations legislation contains essentially the amount of money being appropriated but it contains very little in terms of legislative directions. If an authorization bill contains wording that says that Congress wants a SD-HLV, NASA has to listen.
Quote from: Commander Keen on 03/05/2010 04:34 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:28 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:26 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 04:14 pmQuote from: psloss on 03/05/2010 04:08 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 pmHas the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?On the Senate side:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723It's up on Thomas, too.Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.NO co-sponsors.I don't understand politics, so I won't get into the whys and why nots of lots of political armwaving, when they won't put their name to it (looking at you Senator Nelson). However, there's something in the article that everyone has missed, and I'm worried it's because it doesn't mean much?QuoteThis latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not sure, they are against it, against losing Orion.That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?Politics, argh! I don't think the full story is out yet. Probably they are gaining sponsors right now but who knows. I have wondered if the plan all along was to cancel Constellation in an attempt to cancel Ares only? Everyone has stated how expensive that rocket has been to develop and its shortfalls. Canceling CxP outright with the idea of some sort of compromise(s) after the fact, like bringing back Orion and some sort of HLV, would eliminate Ares and make everyone look good because everyone compromised. I think that seems to be more politically pleasing by all then just canceling Ares only on the outset, if you know what I mean. Could that be possible?It has been debated that perhaps there was a "master plan" behind all of this on Obama's part. But, I do not think that is the case. I think that he is to preoccupied to come with something like that and that he doesn't care that much. But who knows?
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:28 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:26 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 04:14 pmQuote from: psloss on 03/05/2010 04:08 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 pmHas the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?On the Senate side:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723It's up on Thomas, too.Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.NO co-sponsors.I don't understand politics, so I won't get into the whys and why nots of lots of political armwaving, when they won't put their name to it (looking at you Senator Nelson). However, there's something in the article that everyone has missed, and I'm worried it's because it doesn't mean much?QuoteThis latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not sure, they are against it, against losing Orion.That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?Politics, argh! I don't think the full story is out yet. Probably they are gaining sponsors right now but who knows. I have wondered if the plan all along was to cancel Constellation in an attempt to cancel Ares only? Everyone has stated how expensive that rocket has been to develop and its shortfalls. Canceling CxP outright with the idea of some sort of compromise(s) after the fact, like bringing back Orion and some sort of HLV, would eliminate Ares and make everyone look good because everyone compromised. I think that seems to be more politically pleasing by all then just canceling Ares only on the outset, if you know what I mean. Could that be possible?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:26 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 04:14 pmQuote from: psloss on 03/05/2010 04:08 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 pmHas the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?On the Senate side:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723It's up on Thomas, too.Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.NO co-sponsors.I don't understand politics, so I won't get into the whys and why nots of lots of political armwaving, when they won't put their name to it (looking at you Senator Nelson). However, there's something in the article that everyone has missed, and I'm worried it's because it doesn't mean much?QuoteThis latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not sure, they are against it, against losing Orion.That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?Politics, argh! I don't think the full story is out yet. Probably they are gaining sponsors right now but who knows.
Quote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 04:14 pmQuote from: psloss on 03/05/2010 04:08 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 pmHas the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?On the Senate side:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723It's up on Thomas, too.Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.NO co-sponsors.I don't understand politics, so I won't get into the whys and why nots of lots of political armwaving, when they won't put their name to it (looking at you Senator Nelson). However, there's something in the article that everyone has missed, and I'm worried it's because it doesn't mean much?QuoteThis latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not sure, they are against it, against losing Orion.That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?Politics, argh!
Quote from: psloss on 03/05/2010 04:08 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 pmHas the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?On the Senate side:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723It's up on Thomas, too.Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.NO co-sponsors.
Quote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 pmHas the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?On the Senate side:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723It's up on Thomas, too.Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.
Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?
This latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/05/2010 05:24 pmI sort of wondered about that. I was under the impression that appropriations legislation contains essentially the amount of money being appropriated but it contains very little in terms of legislative directions. If an authorization bill contains wording that says that Congress wants a SD-HLV, NASA has to listen. Precisely. The reason why this is announced months before the final is to give the departments involved an idea of the direction, so they can prepare.
I was looking at the 2008 NASA Authorization Act and it took exactly 5 months from the date of the introduction of the Bill to the date that it became law:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR06063:@@@R
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/05/2010 04:58 pmI was looking at the 2008 NASA Authorization Act and it took exactly 5 months from the date of the introduction of the Bill to the date that it became law:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR06063:@@@RThe 2008 authorization was much less contentious that anything that can be past in this environment.In a way the 2008 authorization was a hold the course vote. Hold the course is not an option this year. It will be a legislative miracle if anything get's past in the next 60 days.
The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not so, I'm told by LM, they are against it, against losing Orion.That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?Politics, argh!
*like jobs, ect...don't go off on a tangent for me not qualifying this one.
Quote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 pmwow, this thread got all hijacked over individual master plans for conquest of the universe.I've found a problem with this bill, I believe. While it provides for additional separate funding for the shuttle operations it also requires that existing ISS products currently not manifested be identified and evaluated but I do not see any funding for that task. Nor do I see any funding for any reconditioning, retesting, etc for any payloads that may be identified. Not much point in extending the shuttle if the payloads are unfunded IMO.
wow, this thread got all hijacked over individual master plans for conquest of the universe.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:53 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:49 pmBy the way, Awsome article Chris . When I logged on to NSF and saw that epic picture of STS-Jupiter up again I new something good had happened for a change. Thanks! Although I do like that graphic, and probably overuse it like the Shuttle during MaxQ image Will start working the next article - probably after a processing update (Shuttle still rules the roost) - at the weekend. Have a fair amount of content to throw in and some interesting quotes. Will probably note what SSP manager John Shannon had to say about this week's events into the processing article.Roger that Chris. Thanks . Very excited for that new article, especially Mr. Shannon's comments. I imagine he is thrilled.......
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:49 pmBy the way, Awsome article Chris . When I logged on to NSF and saw that epic picture of STS-Jupiter up again I new something good had happened for a change. Thanks! Although I do like that graphic, and probably overuse it like the Shuttle during MaxQ image Will start working the next article - probably after a processing update (Shuttle still rules the roost) - at the weekend. Have a fair amount of content to throw in and some interesting quotes. Will probably note what SSP manager John Shannon had to say about this week's events into the processing article.
By the way, Awsome article Chris . When I logged on to NSF and saw that epic picture of STS-Jupiter up again I new something good had happened for a change.
Ironically, the potential slip to STS-134 comes at a time when lawmakers are pushing for a large extension to the shuttle’s operational lifetime, a drive which was acknowledged – at least by way of asking his teams to remained focus on the job in hand – by Mr Shannon.“There are many stories in the news, as there always are. This time it seems they are more focused on our team (SSP). The best thing we can do is to continue to operate excellently as we have been, keep putting together outstanding vehicles with no problems in flight, and keep hitting our launch windows,” Mr Shannon added to the Standup report.“The team has been doing a wonderful job of that. We just need to keep it up, and keep our heads down, and we will see where the country wants this team to go.”
If they do a swap, launch STS-133 in July, and push STS-134 into 2011, could the program approve STS-135 and slip it into the fall 2010 time frame?