What went wrong started during the Obama Administration. The President replaced the Vision for Space Exploration, in April 2010, with his own space policy.In turn, all the original plans did not come to fruition.
Yes, there were a lot of delays of Constellation during the first 5 years, but there are a lot of delays in the private sector within a 5-year period too. Things are compareable.
Quote from: ZachS09 on 07/01/2017 02:37 amWhat went wrong started during the Obama Administration. The President replaced the Vision for Space Exploration, in April 2010, with his own space policy.In turn, all the original plans did not come to fruition.This is completely stupid and biased. - Ares I couldn't lift Orion because of the air-started SSME siliness. - Ares V was way too big and expensive - More generally, ESAS had to use shuttle components to preserve Shelby and Nelson pork in Congress, - also ATK large solids from Utah (see SLS) - So EELVs were discarded with shameless lies (the black zones). - LH2 + big solids, inherited from the shuttle pork, isn't optimal. Large kerolox is better (hint, F-1). - best shuttle derived architecture was DIRECT - the two launchers were more balanced (Jupiter 120 and Jupiter 232) - DIRECT however never had a real chance of winning (we got SLS instead) - NASA never got the necessary budget (see Augustine budget numbers in their 2009 analysis)- they never cut metal for the lunar lander By ranking order, best options would have been - EELVs - DIRECT- ESAS
I'm sure that I am forgetting a few things on the drawn-out "space soap opera"...
Quote from: ZachS09 on 07/01/2017 02:37 amWhat went wrong started during the Obama Administration.The Constellation program, especially Ares I, was in trouble and that's why the Obama administration cancelled Constellation.
What went wrong started during the Obama Administration.
I think that back in its days Constellation made a lot of sense.
Both Shuttle derived concepts were generally agreed to be a quicker and more cost effective path
See attached chart for what went wrong, this is from NASA 2007 budget request. According to the chart this year's Constellation budget would need to be about $15B! The whole thing is totally unrealistic in terms of budget, this should be obvious from the start.
The wrong architecture and wrong expendable hardware all started with 3 flaws of the VSE introduced at the last minute by the party in control to retain shuttle derive. Recall that O'Keefe, appointed by Bush, was shifting to the 'spiral architecture' and consolidate to the DOD and IP fleet.Any LV with solids increases the number of configuration to be certified and worse increase LAS abort mass, so CxP Constellation's Ares I, could not get off the ground due to a 4mT to 10mT increase over liquids.So given the VSE's goal of reuse to dramatically lower launch costs, the existing fleet had unique limitations to achieve NASA and DOD's goal: Atlas/Delta/SLS were expendable and contained solidsDirect/LV24/25 was not a good concept either but look at the complete picture, and ....Quote from: Rocket Science on 07/01/2017 01:30 pmI'm sure that I am forgetting a few things on the drawn-out "space soap opera"...So we have yet another thread trying to rewrite history casting blame on Obama who listened to the complete picture and cancelled CxP for sound reasons. SLS/Orion should not be part of the equation. The assessment became reality when SpaceX re-landed a 1st stage.Sadly, at least for me, we have a nation and parts of the NASA community who are self centered and easily duped, but its compounded by a party who adapted Russian active measures to weaponize fake news.The goal of HSF is enable the DSH Gateway voyager to provide long term deep space travel economically. The technology does not exist for the benefit of all, so the two pronged approach is to preposition supplies and reduce the trip time to balance operations and long term R&D.Find asteroids to get to Mars Quote from: RonM on 07/01/2017 04:56 amQuote from: ZachS09 on 07/01/2017 02:37 amWhat went wrong started during the Obama Administration.The Constellation program, especially Ares I, was in trouble and that's why the Obama administration cancelled Constellation.Quote from: Svetoslav on 07/01/2017 06:07 amI think that back in its days Constellation made a lot of sense. Quote from: MATTBLAK on 07/01/2017 06:41 amBoth Shuttle derived concepts were generally agreed to be a quicker and more cost effective path Quote from: su27k on 07/01/2017 08:01 amSee attached chart for what went wrong, this is from NASA 2007 budget request. According to the chart this year's Constellation budget would need to be about $15B! The whole thing is totally unrealistic in terms of budget, this should be obvious from the start.
How 'bout a Vision and National Execution Plan for Space Exploration 2024 instead of ENDLESSLY arguing over the past- when is enough enough already? Now these debates are coming over to the historical section?! What if all this mental firepower could be put to use planning and then actually Doing Something with all the assets we've got for a decade or two to jump start this thing already? When it comes to SLS isn't the biggest issue now whether to resume engine production or not? If "Not", then shouldn't those flights still possible be used to orbit the most sophisticated modules and equipment we can, leading to a robust lunar orbit/surface infrastructure? I do not personally want to see NASA denied a lead-operational role in space; I don't want to see it de-evolve into a taxpayer funded R and D account strictly for enabling the commercialization of space, though I don't mind if that is PART of what it does. Why in 2017 are we still fighting over the idea of a moon-base? IMHO- ridiculous! Some of these threads remind me of high-school cafeteria debates over who was better:Hendrix or Clapton; Page or Jeff Beck? As we got a little older we realized they were all great, well Hendrix of course the best!, and had great music to contribute to society. We also expanded our horizons to include Bach and Beethoven, Duke Ellington and Coltrane-they all contribute to the richness of life. It's time for the space program to come together and enrich us all again, instead of playing one thing off another: Manned vs.Unmanned/Private vs.Public/ Moon vs.Mars/ Military vs. Civilian/ JPL vs.JSC/Congress vs. Administration/ Old Space vs. New Space/ SpaceX vs. Blue Origin/ etc.etc etc...
You know, this thread really isn't a discussion of history. It's just the same bunch of people who argue about this stuff on other threads in this forum arguing about it here.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 07/01/2017 11:27 pmThose of us who have been on this virtually unique website and virtual 'think tank' for ten years or more (12 for me) have seen one main thing happen: most of us are reading from the same book, even though many times we are not all on the same page.As someone who actually does space policy for a living, my observation of this "virtually unique website and virtual 'think tank'" as you put it, is that most of you guys think you understand a lot more that is going on than you actually do--and this thread is typical of that. You base your assumptions on what you read on the internet and blogs and work out on the back of napkins, not realizing that a lot of stuff is private/secret, but also that a lot of what is going on is public, but not written on the internet or blogs and you guys don't know about it. I've gone to public discussions and workshops in DC where people revealed information that is not consistent with the stuff you've seen on the internet, or where somebody comments about something that puts a lot of that information in an entirely different context, but you didn't know about it because you weren't there. And as a result of this gaping hole in knowledge on this "virtual think tank," a whole bunch of people here jumped to inaccurate conclusions, or engaged in pointless pursuits (like the "Direct" stuff, where people somehow assumed that a crowd-sourced rocket design had a snowball's chance in Hades of getting selected).In addition, most members of this site have an abnormal fixation on rockets, as if that's the most important thing, and a misunderstanding of how policy gets made and what it actually means. So people run off and do their cost calculations trading one rocket off against another in terms of dollar value and not comprehending that the rocket is only one part of the technology question, and the technology questions are themselves embedded in a much more complex equation of political support and process and power (and even personalities). So people come to the naive conclusion that the Vision for Space Exploration failed because the rocket cost too much, when there were many other factors involved, including an attitude within the Obama administration that they didn't want to pursue any policy that the previous administration had started.Heck, if you guys only knew how some of these decisions actually got made, you'd be startled. But you probably also wouldn't care, because it's not always about the rockets.
Those of us who have been on this virtually unique website and virtual 'think tank' for ten years or more (12 for me) have seen one main thing happen: most of us are reading from the same book, even though many times we are not all on the same page.
I think that back in its days Constellation made a lot of sense. The end of the Space Shuttle was looming, and it seemed rational that we need to use shuttle hardware as much as possible.
The Ares I Stick had to use one booster, one SSME for a second stage and we hoped it was going to be developed easily. Only later the problems started, when the SSME turned out to be inadequate, and a larger solid booster had to be developed, so the Stick in the end was an entirely different rocket...
2004 was a different year compared to 2010 (when Obama canceled Constellation) and much different than 2017. Back then SpaceX was too young, the private sector seemed immature, Elon started launching rockets in 2006... and it was like one rocket per year. There were three failures in 2006, 2007 and 2008. It was hard to believe that the private companies were going anywere. And Falcon 9 didn't debut until 2010...
Beginning no later than 2008, we will send a series of robotic missions to the lunar surface to research and prepare for future human exploration.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/02/2017 05:53 amWhen Elon Musk misses a date, the U.S. Taxpayer doesn't pay for it. That's so untrue. When private contractors miss dates on government contracts the government definitely pays for it. You think that delays on commercial cargo (or blowing up an ISS resupply rocket) had no consequences? This "government bad/private good" attitude is one of the many simplistic memes pushed on this forum.
When Elon Musk misses a date, the U.S. Taxpayer doesn't pay for it.
In contrast, when Obama came in he created a presidential commission to provide advice (Augustine). But after that they went radio silent for MONTHS. They cut EVERYBODY out of their deliberative process. The whole thing happened in secret and kept even senior NASA officials in the dark, treating NASA as an enemy.
Quote from: Blackstar on 07/02/2017 04:07 pmIn contrast, when Obama came in he created a presidential commission to provide advice (Augustine). But after that they went radio silent for MONTHS. They cut EVERYBODY out of their deliberative process. The whole thing happened in secret and kept even senior NASA officials in the dark, treating NASA as an enemy.Thanks for the posts and perspective...apologies if I've asked you this before here, but do you know if this was done mostly in ignorance of how it would be received, or is it possible it was done that way deliberately?
Quote from: psloss on 07/02/2017 04:41 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 07/02/2017 04:07 pmIn contrast, when Obama came in he created a presidential commission to provide advice (Augustine). But after that they went radio silent for MONTHS. They cut EVERYBODY out of their deliberative process. The whole thing happened in secret and kept even senior NASA officials in the dark, treating NASA as an enemy.Thanks for the posts and perspective...apologies if I've asked you this before here, but do you know if this was done mostly in ignorance of how it would be received, or is it possible it was done that way deliberately?One could fairly ask what John Holdren's role played in this...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 07/02/2017 08:34 pmQuote from: psloss on 07/02/2017 04:41 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 07/02/2017 04:07 pmIn contrast, when Obama came in he created a presidential commission to provide advice (Augustine). But after that they went radio silent for MONTHS. They cut EVERYBODY out of their deliberative process. The whole thing happened in secret and kept even senior NASA officials in the dark, treating NASA as an enemy.Thanks for the posts and perspective...apologies if I've asked you this before here, but do you know if this was done mostly in ignorance of how it would be received, or is it possible it was done that way deliberately?One could fairly ask what John Holdren's role played in this...There's also Lori Garver's op-ed in SpaceNews from last year that included her point of view from inside the NASA transition from Bush 43 to Obama. It sounds like there wasn't much trust left in either direction by the time that was over.
I think that back in its days Constellation made a lot of sense. The end of the Space Shuttle was looming, and it seemed rational that we need to use shuttle hardware as much as possi
Quote from: Blackstar on 07/02/2017 03:02 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 07/02/2017 05:53 amWhen Elon Musk misses a date, the U.S. Taxpayer doesn't pay for it. That's so untrue. When private contractors miss dates on government contracts the government definitely pays for it. You think that delays on commercial cargo (or blowing up an ISS resupply rocket) had no consequences? This "government bad/private good" attitude is one of the many simplistic memes pushed on this forum.I'd agree not everything is exactly black or white, but you'd also have to agree that Firm Fixed Priced contracts mean the contractors are responsible for cost overruns, whereas with Cost Plus contracts contractors don't have strong incentives to stick to cost or schedule goals.
Since this is now 13 years ago, I believe its fair to talk about this in history section. <snip>
NEO Target of Opportunity may exist in the desired 2015 - 2030 Timeframe
Proponent, that's a cool way of putting it but let's get down to the nitty-gritty: We cancel SLS and Orion, tell all the people who worked on this stuff, hey you are lucky you got the pork while we had it to give, so see you later...NASA will do aerodynamic research for the airlines and Boeing to make $ off of, and hence forth each planet will be auctioned-off for exploration to, what-the highest bidder? The company with the most political connections? Or the company with the coolest logo? Good Luck, all!-SpaceX is out-in-front right now; they're the horse to bet on! Will it always be that way? Remember, no bail-outs allowed, it's dog-eat-dog out here now.
Since this is now 13 years ago, i believe its fair to talk about this in history section. https://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htmhttps://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/vision_concepts.htmlAt 14:00, "Using the Crew Exploration Vehicle we will undertake extended human missions to the Moon as early as 2015"What went wrong ?
Quote from: eric z on 07/01/2017 01:50 pm How 'bout a Vision and National Execution Plan for Space Exploration 2024 instead of ENDLESSLY arguing over the past- when is enough enough already? Now these debates are coming over to the historical section?! What if all this mental firepower could be put to use planning and then actually Doing Something with all the assets we've got for a decade or two to jump start this thing already? When it comes to SLS isn't the biggest issue now whether to resume engine production or not? If "Not", then shouldn't those flights still possible be used to orbit the most sophisticated modules and equipment we can, leading to a robust lunar orbit/surface infrastructure? I do not personally want to see NASA denied a lead-operational role in space; I don't want to see it de-evolve into a taxpayer funded R and D account strictly for enabling the commercialization of space, though I don't mind if that is PART of what it does. Why in 2017 are we still fighting over the idea of a moon-base? IMHO- ridiculous! Some of these threads remind me of high-school cafeteria debates over who was better:Hendrix or Clapton; Page or Jeff Beck? As we got a little older we realized they were all great, well Hendrix of course the best!, and had great music to contribute to society. We also expanded our horizons to include Bach and Beethoven, Duke Ellington and Coltrane-they all contribute to the richness of life. It's time for the space program to come together and enrich us all again, instead of playing one thing off another: Manned vs.Unmanned/Private vs.Public/ Moon vs.Mars/ Military vs. Civilian/ JPL vs.JSC/Congress vs. Administration/ Old Space vs. New Space/ SpaceX vs. Blue Origin/ etc.etc etc...It's like you and your friends all like Hendrix, Clapton, Bach, Coltrane, etc., but you only have enough money to buy one album. Which one do you get? It would be nice to have the money to get them all, but the money isn't there.
I think that back in its days Constellation made a lot of sense. The end of the Space Shuttle was looming, and it seemed rational that we need to use shuttle hardware as much as possible. The Ares I Stick had to use one booster, one SSME for a second stage and we hoped it was going to be developed easily. Only later the problems started, when the SSME turned out to be inadequate, and a larger solid booster had to be developed, so the Stick in the end was an entirely different rocket...2004 was a different year compared to 2010 (when Obama canceled Constellation) and much different than 2017. Back then SpaceX was too young, the private sector seemed immature, Elon started launching rockets in 2006... and it was like one rocket per year. There were three failures in 2006, 2007 and 2008. It was hard to believe that the private companies were going anywere. And Falcon 9 didn't debut until 2010... And you keep to forget that even though we already had Falcon 9 in 2010, Elon Musk said that there was going to be no gap. Seven years later, the manned flights of Dragon are still nowhere to be seen. Yes, there were a lot of delays of Constellation during the first 5 years, but there are a lot of delays in the private sector within a 5-year period too. Things are comparable.
The only commercial alternative to SLS at time would be twin engine Atlas or Delta 4H.
Being government funded projects with same contractors I doubt they would be any cheaper than SLS. Distributed launch or fuel depots would need to be developed, not bad thing but another large expensive.
Cost overruns and long delays have been and will most likely always be part of large difficult engineering projects, civil, structural or aerospace.
...And it's also worth considering who's going to bear the overruns. With SLS, it's NASA. With commercial cargo and crew, NASA still incurs costs when its suppliers fail to keep to schedule, but it by no means bears the full brunt.
Has the White House (or Congress) gotten any less delusional about NASA funding in the last 13 years, ya think?
I really think congress got the wool pulled over their eyes by Griffin.
"those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it"Reading this thread one gets the sense that there is little agreement on what should be learned from the past. Therefore we must be doomed.My immediate reaction on listening to President Bush's speech - which I told to Bill Gerstenmaier then the ISS Program manager - was: "The only part of this that will come true is that the shuttle will be retired."
Quote from: Wayne Hale on 07/05/2017 04:38 pm"those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it"Reading this thread one gets the sense that there is little agreement on what should be learned from the past. Therefore we must be doomed.My immediate reaction on listening to President Bush's speech - which I told to Bill Gerstenmaier then the ISS Program manager - was: "The only part of this that will come true is that the shuttle will be retired."I posted on this thread earlier, then got tired of all the baloney--and also disagreed with moving it to the policy section (hint: policy history is also a thing)--so I quit and deleted my posts.But I'd just point out that the Bush folks actually did try to learn from the past. They had people research the failure of the Space Exploration Initiative and try to take action to avoid that. I'm not convinced that debating this or discussing it makes sense on NSF, because too many people have decided on their conclusions and simply want to engage in the same arguments over and over again. It's an issue common to most discussion forums, where people want to play the same four notes rather than learn a new tune.
Quote from: Blackstar on 07/05/2017 05:06 pmQuote from: Wayne Hale on 07/05/2017 04:38 pm"those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it"Reading this thread one gets the sense that there is little agreement on what should be learned from the past. Therefore we must be doomed.My immediate reaction on listening to President Bush's speech - which I told to Bill Gerstenmaier then the ISS Program manager - was: "The only part of this that will come true is that the shuttle will be retired."I posted on this thread earlier, then got tired of all the baloney--and also disagreed with moving it to the policy section (hint: policy history is also a thing)--so I quit and deleted my posts.But I'd just point out that the Bush folks actually did try to learn from the past. They had people research the failure of the Space Exploration Initiative and try to take action to avoid that. I'm not convinced that debating this or discussing it makes sense on NSF, because too many people have decided on their conclusions and simply want to engage in the same arguments over and over again. It's an issue common to most discussion forums, where people want to play the same four notes rather than learn a new tune.If you have the "sheet-music" for that "new tune", I for one would be happy to hear it!
I made a judgment call that this topic was degenerating into yet another rehash (as you noted, same arguments over and over), and that it fit space policy. I invited people to PM me before doing the move. If you disagreed, the thing to do was to report to mod. Not delete posts. I've seen this "deleted all my posts" behavior (by others, in other places) and it's often perceived as not helpful... at best. But if we do end up continuing to go round and round (and comments calling people pinheads, as we have seen others (not you) do suggest we may be stuck) then even moving it here won't save it.
This is a highly useful and valuable thread but it's primarily space policy. If you're not an L2 member please PM me now because I'm not seeing a reason not to move it there other than that.Edit: It has been moved.
So why didn't President Obama horsetrade the Big Booster and Capsule for the tech development stuff? This is what I don't understand, and I know someone will say it wasn't a priority...
Still want to know what people think should be the fate of the program- not just what went wrong!
But I'd just point out that the Bush folks actually did try to learn from the past. They had people research the failure of the Space Exploration Initiative and try to take action to avoid that.
Coastal Ron, I meant the fate of SLS now---what do you guys and gals think should be done Now???<snip>
Since this is now 13 years ago, i believe its fair to talk about this in history section. https://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htmhttps://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/vision_concepts.html<snip>What went wrong ?
Coastal Ron, I meant the fate of SLS now---what do you guys and gals think should be done Now???
Also, on a more "Historical" note, I always thought that zero-ing out the ISS budget by 2016, or whatever, was a ploy/joke in the first place, to make the $-projections look better. I don't think that was ever viewed as a real option...
...but what do I know- any thoughts on this aspect of the whole mess? Unrealistic budget games seem to be the root of all evil!
eric z, I've said this before... Mothball SLS...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 07/06/2017 08:29 pmeric z, I've said this before... Mothball SLS...I've said this before...Mothball comments about mothballing SLS.This is not a thread to debate SLS. There are other threads for that.
"those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it"Reading this thread one gets the sense that there is little agreement on what should be learned from the past.
* Don't expect any of this to ever change.
I think it would change if HSF became a government priority. I'm not counting on that, but it has (briefly) happened in the past.
Apollo was just as bad.
Quote from: Proponent on 07/10/2017 10:21 amI think it would change if HSF became a government priority. I'm not counting on that, but it has (briefly) happened in the past.Apollo was just as bad.
The killer would have been Atlas V phase two heavy which probably would have been cheaper, especially if ACES was also developed. The twin engine RD-180 would have been a great launcher in and of itself, then the heavy version could have matched or exceeded side mount in cost.
<Thoughtful comments from the co-founder of DIRECT>
I do not personally want to see NASA denied a lead-operational role in space;
I don't want to see it de-evolve into a taxpayer funded R and D account strictly for enabling the commercialization of space,
Respectfully Ron, I just don't look at it that way. We disagree, OK? The pendulum, IMHO, is starting to swing too far to the commercial is great, gov sucks side instead of a good balance.
In my opinion the VSE was, itself, a brilliant and carefully thought thru vision for where this nation should go with space. It was not the vision that was flawed – it was the execution. ...
Quote from: clongton on 07/11/2017 04:58 pmIn my opinion the VSE was, itself, a brilliant and carefully thought thru vision for where this nation should go with space. It was not the vision that was flawed – it was the execution. ...(...not trying to slight your thoughtful comments)Briefly summarized: Don't care what you want to do in space, keep hands off of my power base!Q.E.D.: Status Quo is king.
Quote from: AncientU on 07/11/2017 09:33 pmQuote from: clongton on 07/11/2017 04:58 pmIn my opinion the VSE was, itself, a brilliant and carefully thought thru vision for where this nation should go with space. It was not the vision that was flawed – it was the execution. ...(...not trying to slight your thoughtful comments)Briefly summarized: Don't care what you want to do in space, keep hands off of my power base!Q.E.D.: Status Quo is king.I dont think at all that should be the conclusion of Clangtons post. Status Quo can change rapidly iff (two 'f' if and only if) a program is proposed that benefits enough of the relevant districts to keep the senators happy and gives wide visible publicity to the acting president. So that means the program needs to spend the money distributed in the right way and it needs to be fast, preferably showing results in less than 4 years as well as it needs to be spectacular.The trick is to find and design such a program. If you cant find one or if you can show that its impossible, you can claim QED. Otherwise not.For example:* ARES failed in number two, it wasnt fast enough for the acting president.* SLS fails in number three, it doesnt do spectacular enough stuff, which can be mitigated by the gateway to Mars. But then it fails in number two again, it takes way too long, much more than 8 years. If Clangton is correct and his statements look very compelling to me, then the gateway to Mars cant save SLS.Examples for successful projects:* Apollo: Distributed manufacturing and R&D, timely execution and very spectacular* STS: Distributed manufacturing and R&D, space truck (I think) took way to long initially and replaced by the space shuttle, which then lead to a spectacular development: ISS* ISS: Distributed manufacturing and R&D, initially space station freedom before ISS and results in steps of individual modules conceived as a success by multiple presidents.That might be a very broad brush view but it shows that if something should be done, it needs to be bend into the political structure before the technical aspects are discussed. And great things can be done in this case.
The basic features of the COTS program include:(1)Establishing high-level requirements and encouraging contractors to execute against them with creative, innovate, and cost-effective solutions, reducing “requirements creep” and encouraging new thinking. The COTS program required contractors to meet a clear set of established safety and interface ISS requirements and high-level milestone requirements, rather than implementing overly-specified and ever-changing detailed Government requirements. This requires the Government customer to tell contractors what they need to be done, rather than prescribing how to do it. Coupled with firm, fixed-price arrangements, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that “the use of firm-fixed-price contracts—along with well-defined requirements and a sufficient level of knowledge about critical technologies—presents the least risk to the government.”
In the Apollo era, it was really neat because we didnt think we were so smart. So the requirement was to put human to the moon and return them safely. It didnt talk about stable orbit rendezvous, it didnt talk about the propulsion systems to be used, it didnt talk about all the other pieces. And in today’s world, sometimes our requirements generators think they know all these wonderful things. So they give us all these top level requirements and specified details that are maybe more problematic than helpful. So my guidance is to those that give me requirements: think simply and ask what you want us to really do. Dont give us the details about all the other things that need to be accomplished and are interesting but not necessarily contribute to what you really want us to do. And then let us trade through flexibility all thous other things you are going for.
Anyway. If Industry and NASA ask for a break out of the congress circle, do they have a chance?
Well, Congress could give NASA a budget of $1B for project X. Then they specify that $300M of that must be spent in Sen. Shelbys state. $200M more in the state of Senator Y and the remaining $500M NASA can spend as they see fit. That does exactly what the senators want and it doesn't overspecify technical solutions.