Quote from: aquanaut99 on 09/20/2010 03:49 pmI'm so disgusted right now I'm beginning to hope that the result in Congress will be a complete deadlock that will get nothing done at all. This seems like the least bad of all possible bad outcomes. Because while NASA gets nothing done, SpaceX will be flying astronauts to ISS by 2015.Who's going to fund the development ? A CR will have no funds for commercial crew. Soyuz is what will be relied on.
I'm so disgusted right now I'm beginning to hope that the result in Congress will be a complete deadlock that will get nothing done at all. This seems like the least bad of all possible bad outcomes. Because while NASA gets nothing done, SpaceX will be flying astronauts to ISS by 2015.
Who's going to fund the development ? A CR will have no funds for commercial crew. Soyuz is what will be relied on.
Quote from: marsavian on 09/20/2010 03:55 pmQuote from: aquanaut99 on 09/20/2010 03:49 pmI'm so disgusted right now I'm beginning to hope that the result in Congress will be a complete deadlock that will get nothing done at all. This seems like the least bad of all possible bad outcomes. Because while NASA gets nothing done, SpaceX will be flying astronauts to ISS by 2015.Who's going to fund the development ? A CR will have no funds for commercial crew. Soyuz is what will be relied on.Possible. But Soyuz won't last forever either. Sooner or later an alternative will become available. Or we abandon HSF entirely.
Quote from: aquanaut99 on 09/20/2010 03:49 pmI'm so disgusted right now I'm beginning to hope that the result in Congress will be a complete deadlock that will get nothing done at all. This seems like the least bad of all possible bad outcomes. Because while NASA gets nothing done, SpaceX will be flying astronauts to ISS by 2015.Where's SpaceX going to get the money from in that scenario. They are a business and won't do things that aren't good business (rightly so).Edit: Beaten to it by Marsavian
Quote from: aquanaut99 on 09/20/2010 03:59 pmQuote from: marsavian on 09/20/2010 03:55 pmQuote from: aquanaut99 on 09/20/2010 03:49 pmI'm so disgusted right now I'm beginning to hope that the result in Congress will be a complete deadlock that will get nothing done at all. This seems like the least bad of all possible bad outcomes. Because while NASA gets nothing done, SpaceX will be flying astronauts to ISS by 2015.Who's going to fund the development ? A CR will have no funds for commercial crew. Soyuz is what will be relied on.Possible. But Soyuz won't last forever either. Sooner or later an alternative will become available. Or we abandon HSF entirely.Strange post. Why comment on Soyuz when you don't know any facts on it? Here's one, it's good for the length of the ISS extension. I assume you are anti-HSF?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/20/2010 03:59 pmQuote from: aquanaut99 on 09/20/2010 03:49 pmI'm so disgusted right now I'm beginning to hope that the result in Congress will be a complete deadlock that will get nothing done at all. This seems like the least bad of all possible bad outcomes. Because while NASA gets nothing done, SpaceX will be flying astronauts to ISS by 2015.Where's SpaceX going to get the money from in that scenario. They are a business and won't do things that aren't good business (rightly so).Edit: Beaten to it by Marsavian SpaceX has said that it only needs $100 million for its pusher LAS (excluding any test flights). If commercial crew isn't funded, it will take longer for SpaceX to fly a crewed Dragon but it will still happen.
Just fed up with the whole endless discussions and political infighting.
Ok, so SpaceX only need another $100m....on top of what they were awarded in the $3.1 billion CRS contract (is that money safe?), and in addition to whatever COTS contract award will be required to actually launch crew?Just asking
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/20/2010 05:12 pmOk, so SpaceX only need another $100m....on top of what they were awarded in the $3.1 billion CRS contract (is that money safe?), and in addition to whatever COTS contract award will be required to actually launch crew?Just asking I think any "COTS-crew" (or whatever it would be called) contract is what would be used to fund the development of the LAS. Not in addition to it.
Nelson said he met for two hours Wednesday with the House science committee's chairman, Democratic Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee, but they weren't able to reach a compromise. ... Gordon said he hopes to bring a bill to the House floor this week. "We're in discussions. We're making a lot of progress, and I'm very optimistic," Gordon said.
Remember that Gordan isn't standing for reelection, so it's not in his interests to let this go to a CR...
Quote from: robertross on 09/20/2010 03:10 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 09/20/2010 01:30 pmYet I struggle with the very premise of validity in that report, and continue to whine about it. Its key recommendation, visiting a NEO in the 'near term' of 2025, is ludicrous, as is the requirement for 6 1/2 or 7 new spacecraft which are nothing but pixels on a screen at the moment.Yes, and just consider the complexity & challenges of a Mars landing, and what this would translate into (based on such a HEFT report).Something that is 'slightly' overlooked is that Obama had requested a Mars landing in mid-late 2030s. We would have to start building hardware for that before we even sent our crew module up to begin a NEO mission.Obama had requested Mars *orbit* by the 2030s. Once the life support is qualified for longer missions, the HEFT asteroid spacecraft design is capable of a Phobos mission.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/20/2010 01:30 pmYet I struggle with the very premise of validity in that report, and continue to whine about it. Its key recommendation, visiting a NEO in the 'near term' of 2025, is ludicrous, as is the requirement for 6 1/2 or 7 new spacecraft which are nothing but pixels on a screen at the moment.Yes, and just consider the complexity & challenges of a Mars landing, and what this would translate into (based on such a HEFT report).Something that is 'slightly' overlooked is that Obama had requested a Mars landing in mid-late 2030s. We would have to start building hardware for that before we even sent our crew module up to begin a NEO mission.
Yet I struggle with the very premise of validity in that report, and continue to whine about it. Its key recommendation, visiting a NEO in the 'near term' of 2025, is ludicrous, as is the requirement for 6 1/2 or 7 new spacecraft which are nothing but pixels on a screen at the moment.
Quote from: Will on 09/20/2010 03:52 pmQuote from: robertross on 09/20/2010 03:10 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 09/20/2010 01:30 pmYet I struggle with the very premise of validity in that report, and continue to whine about it. Its key recommendation, visiting a NEO in the 'near term' of 2025, is ludicrous, as is the requirement for 6 1/2 or 7 new spacecraft which are nothing but pixels on a screen at the moment.Yes, and just consider the complexity & challenges of a Mars landing, and what this would translate into (based on such a HEFT report).Something that is 'slightly' overlooked is that Obama had requested a Mars landing in mid-late 2030s. We would have to start building hardware for that before we even sent our crew module up to begin a NEO mission.Obama had requested Mars *orbit* by the 2030s. Once the life support is qualified for longer missions, the HEFT asteroid spacecraft design is capable of a Phobos mission.Well I guess my memory of that was a little hazy. It was orbit Mars in the mid 2030s, and then landing 'soon after that'.
Quote from: alexw on 09/20/2010 09:06 am Thanks for the reply, Jeff. I understand that future authorizations are hypothetical, and that both present and future appropriations committees need not be bound by any of it, but it's helpful to hear that you project that budget line to remain similar -- that the Committee is not under the impression that it would cut back in just a few years. Regarding timelines, the Senate bill specifies 31 Dec 2016, but according to the HEFT presentations -- which you are no doubt well aware of -- one projection for entry into service of the core alone is around 2019. HEFT also figures total development costs of $17.4 billion for the core, and another $7 billion for ground infrastructure -- mods to LC-39, crawlers, crawlerway, etc. -- which are big costs that I haven't seen reported in other small presentations. The total is $24.4 billion ($3 billion less for the "3/4" instead of "5/5" design), which, assuming the Senate budget profile, is finally spent by 2019 or 2020. (That's about the same as HEFT, but HEFT assuming spending at a faster rate, peaking at around $4 billion/yr in 2013.) No doubt you're received your own NASA estimates to bring SLS on line, and they may well be more optimistic. But what happens if either of these cost or time estimates really are correct, and due to either money or technical issues, SLS misses the 2016 deadline? Would NASA technically be in violation of the authorization law, or would future authorization bills likely just push back the clock as the deadline got closer?HEFT is in the very early days. It only started it's full team this month. That's the reason HEFT is all "pre-decisional" now.
Thanks for the reply, Jeff. I understand that future authorizations are hypothetical, and that both present and future appropriations committees need not be bound by any of it, but it's helpful to hear that you project that budget line to remain similar -- that the Committee is not under the impression that it would cut back in just a few years. Regarding timelines, the Senate bill specifies 31 Dec 2016, but according to the HEFT presentations -- which you are no doubt well aware of -- one projection for entry into service of the core alone is around 2019. HEFT also figures total development costs of $17.4 billion for the core, and another $7 billion for ground infrastructure -- mods to LC-39, crawlers, crawlerway, etc. -- which are big costs that I haven't seen reported in other small presentations. The total is $24.4 billion ($3 billion less for the "3/4" instead of "5/5" design), which, assuming the Senate budget profile, is finally spent by 2019 or 2020. (That's about the same as HEFT, but HEFT assuming spending at a faster rate, peaking at around $4 billion/yr in 2013.) No doubt you're received your own NASA estimates to bring SLS on line, and they may well be more optimistic. But what happens if either of these cost or time estimates really are correct, and due to either money or technical issues, SLS misses the 2016 deadline? Would NASA technically be in violation of the authorization law, or would future authorization bills likely just push back the clock as the deadline got closer?
Unavoidable, and it was always going to be the case, but I think we're all fed up with it. I have no idea how 51D etc manage to keep fighting, as it's a drain just reading this thread
Quote from: marsavian on 09/20/2010 10:09 amSo the argument could be boiling down to whether something DIRECT-like is funded or something more expensive and capable like Ares V.I think that the argument remains Ares-I. Ares-I is perceived by some (especially in the House) as the only possible successor to the Shuttle. This delusion has not died and its partisans remain determined to protect it.What has happened is that both the House and Senate are now playing a deadly game of Chicken, with the future of NASA HSF likely to be the first casualty.
So the argument could be boiling down to whether something DIRECT-like is funded or something more expensive and capable like Ares V.
What on Earth is his interest in all this, given that he isn't standing for reelection?
There are references to the team at least back to April, and Doug Cooke was discussing it in May. Of course everything is preliminary, no one is saying otherwise.