Author Topic: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV  (Read 300215 times)

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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

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.
I agree except for the politcal maneuver part.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
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.
Definitely depends on a lot of things and while it's not impossible, it's very unlikely NASA's budget will be expedited.  As was clarified after it was released, this bill (focused on HSF policy) would be incorporated into the overall NASA authorization bill.  That hasn't been introduced in either chamber yet.  And it's only the authorization part of the process.  Authority to proceed would require appropriations, too, and hearings for that haven't started yet.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
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.

The Shuttle extension money is different (because it's additionnal money that is being requested on top of the regular NASA budget), a Shuttle extension might get authorized but not appropriated. If it's not appropriated, it then becomes an unfunded mandate which will be ignored by NASA.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2010 05:53 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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.
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.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Commander Keen

  • Member
  • Posts: 98
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?
On the Senate side:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723

It'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?

Quote
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.

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?

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything.  I think that Ares doom has been written on the wall for so long and this was a way to kind of restart Constellation to keep what worked and get rid of what didn't.  Perhaps it is just wishful thinking

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
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.
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 going to post on this issue as well (dealing with the months ahead it would seem to take before anything gets signed into law).

We've already seen some action by Bolden (heck even the contractors). But it's like Bolden has said (in reaction to congress): he needs to go and get answers now so he can come back to them. In this case, with this bill, they are asking for the details of so many things (shuttle extension, ISS spares/logistics...).

I wonder what can be actioned NOW to get looked at BEFORE the Bill gets signed by the President?

It's clear we need these studies done NOW, not 90 days or 60 days, or even 30 days AFTER the Bill is signed. Because at the rate we're going, we'll have NO constellation, NO shuttle, NO SDHLV alternative, and nothing started on CCDev.

At least the HLV review under Constellation allowed for a halting of key aspects of SDHLV items & infrastructure. What is required now is that same level of action. I know it costs, so congress has to be told of a protection cost benefit until this is all sorted out.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
I am guessing that some people like Senator Nelson are trying to fix the FY2011 budget from within prior to passing any legislation. That would explain why Nelson is not co-sponsoring this bill just yet. Perhaps this is where the Plan B idea is coming from. But Plan B doesn't include Shuttle extension. It only refers to accelerating the HLV according to Bolden's memo.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2010 10:32 pm by yg1968 »

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
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

The 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.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2010 11:05 pm by SpacexULA »
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline robertross

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

The 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.

But you have to ask yourself...with congress spending SO MUCH of their time on the health care Bill, how much time is left for all the other legislation? It won't be long and in order to pass Bills to get re-elected (Bills that their constituents want, or *higher priority Bills), they have to rush through others. I guess it all depend how high a priority/value they want to put on the space program.

*like jobs, ect...don't go off on a tangent for me not qualifying this one.

Offline psloss

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

The 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.
Probably a bigger question at this point is whether the groups can reach a compromise in the next 60 days.

FWIW, here's the Congressional schedule for the year (Easter break is coming up, but that's in the news about whether/when a health care vote would happen):
http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/cong_schedule.html
« Last Edit: 03/05/2010 11:31 pm by psloss »

Offline brihath

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 28
WOW....This is what happens when I don't get on NASASpaceflight for five days??

Chris...excellent article!  It is good to hear that some of our legislators are pushing for a common sense approach to human spaceflight in the near term.

There are lot of positives in the proposal, such as preserving jobs, maintaining critical individual and team skills, pushing for a smooth and evolutionary transition out of shuttle ops to either another govt vehicle or commercial.  Either way, the developing transportation models get some breathing room to develop a safe and cost effective HSF alternative.

Interestingly, many of the points in this legislation mirror the some of the comments that I had the opportunity to express before the Augustine Committee at Cocoa Beach in July.  During that same gathering, I participated in two extended conversations with Wayne Hale about ISS downmass and shuttle safety.  I do not doubt that the shuttle can be flown safely for several more years if necessary, and the ISS science programs could benefit from the extra downmass capability that would be provided by the additional flights.

I hope that we can get more definition on who in the House and Senate support such legislation.  Speaking personally, I will write a letter to every one of them.

Oooops...never mind...I just saw the list on the Direct thread.  I'll get going...
« Last Edit: 03/06/2010 01:06 am by brihath »

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

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! :)

LockMart *doesn't like it* because they have more to lose and less to gain.  They would have more *at risk* at a time when this isn't wise.

Also, they would likely have to buy up some little guys ... the strategic acquisition guys are very dangerous and valuations would be all over the map.

As to the competing proposals, its all politics. The further one gets away from POR, the more uncertain the politics are.

But I'm getting the impression that there is no belly in aerospace for any "game changers". Which is unfortunate for all of use. Even those who can't see past the end of their noses...
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
*like jobs, ect...don't go off on a tangent for me not qualifying this one.

The magic trick we can all pray for is the authorization bill for NASA get's attached to the Jobs bill during reconciliation.

A good protion of the pro HLV, pro extension argument comes down to the same justification for the Jobs bill.

Jobs(funding), Jobs(skill retention), Jobs(lift capacity).
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
wow, 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.

Norm, the existing ISS products currently not manifested are sitting in warehouses, already packaged and awaiting flight. Some may need reconditioning, retesting, etc., as you suggest, and the bill includes (Section 9 (e))  $36million for FY 2010 (since we are IN FY 2010, that essentially "authorizes" the use of existing 2010 money, or the submission and approval of a supplemental appropriations request of that amount, if needed), and $100 million in each of FY 2011 and 2012 for the purposes of implementing the steps (outlined in Section 5) necessary to ensure the provisioning and effective use of the ISS, which would include the items currently in inventory and whatever it takes to make them useful. Those funds also are available to initiate procurement of items not now in inventory but deemed essential as a result of the required review, though the bill obviously can't "predict" the outcome of that review, so the language includes a requirement to provide an estimate of the necessary cost, schedule, etc., for those items which could then, of course, be included, for example, in the FY 2012 Budget Request, and the authorization levels adjusted accordingly, if needed, in subsequent legislation.

Remember, too, in both the President's Budget and in any multi-year authorization legislation, the numbers included in Fiscal Years beyond the year for which the Budget Request is initiated (in this case, FY 2011) are only projections. And of course, appropriations are ONLY on a year-by-year basis.  I "think" that might address the issue you raise, and it certainly is the intent behind the language in the bill. Also, if necessary, the language of an introduced bill is only a proposed law; it has to go through Committee markup (formal amendment process) where language can be, to borrow Senator Nelson's phrase quoted by someone earlier, "perfected."  That's the whole point of introducing a bill...to get it on the table for discussion, modification, if called for, etc.. That's also why folks focused on how many cosponsors or who either are or are not on the bill (and Senators can request to be added as co-sponsors any time after introduction, and that can be done by simple unanimous consent request, by the way) are raising an issue that is not really an issue; not to say it's not helpful going in, or useful at any stage, but it's just not essential until it becomes a matter of getting the bill reported to the floor. I've seen many bills with a majority of members co-sponsoring them that never saw the light of day again, for any number of reasons.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2010/03/virginia-says-yes-to-nasa-commercial.html

"The Virginia General Assembly, bucking recent political trends in the more traditional space states, has passed resolutions in the House of Delegates and the Senate  affirming support for the NASA FY 11 budget submitted by the White House and backed by NASA Administrator Charles Bolden."


Offline Harold KSC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
  • Liked: 11877
  • Likes Given: 60
If that's the best they can manage, it shows a complete lack of political support for the Obama plan.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2010 02:41 am by Harold KSC »

Offline Chris Bergin

By the way, Awsome article Chris :D . 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 :D . Very excited for that new article, especially Mr. Shannon's comments. I imagine he is thrilled.......

We had big STS-134 news (actually that's sort of related to this all when you consider current schedule closeout), but I still included Mr Shannon's comments. He's very poker face as per usual:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/sts-131-into-frrs-sts-134-meetings-large-ams-delay/

Quote
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.”
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 kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Odd that Mr Shannon did not point out that it's too late to extend Shuttle. ;)

Maybe "...where the country wants this team to go.” only refers to SDLV or unemployment. Maybe not.

I don't suppose Mr Shannon could go on the record with his opinion on Shuttle extension?
Or did he at A-Com?
« Last Edit: 03/06/2010 06:36 am by kkattula »

Offline Bubbinski

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? 
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline clb22

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

The problem is, STS-135 is under consideration as a 4-crew flight with a Soyuz rescue scenario. STS-134 can't be done with a minimum crew complement of 4. That means you would have to revise all your Soyuz rescue scenario plans to fit for STS-134.

The more interesting possibility I see would be to add STS-135 + two additional flights until end of FY2011/start of FY2012 as part of a compromise with Congress. If STS-134 really slips well into 2011 (not just FY2011) due to AMS problems, this extension would even be a "cheap" compromise for NASA. This compromise could also be fueled - at least politically - if the first Falcon 9 is launched off-nominal.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Tags:
 

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