Author Topic: NASA FY 2016 Budget Request, Senate and House Hearings April 16th 2015  (Read 45783 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
« Last Edit: 04/17/2015 01:59 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
The most interesting part of the hearing is the exchange on commercial crew towards the end.

Shelby asked whether the delays to commercial crew were caused by the fact that commercial crew had 5 companies at the beginning of the program.

Bolden's answer was that he thinks that having competition for commercial crew was important in getting them to a better position today. He gave Blue Origin as an example. He said that their agreement with NASA has helped them develop an engine that might create an American engine to replace the RD-180.

Shelby also asked why NASA needed to pay Russians for Soyuz in 2018. Bolden's answer was that commercial crew is likely to be delayed if it doesn't get the $1.2B that was requested for FY 2016. 

Overall, it was a positive hearing in that Shelby never discussed the possibility of funding commercial crew at less than the amount requested. Those days seem to be finally over.
« Last Edit: 04/17/2015 12:51 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
« Last Edit: 04/17/2015 02:02 am by yg1968 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Overall, it was a positive hearing in that Shelby never discussed the possibility of funding commercial crew at less than the amount requested. Those days seem to be finally over.

I bet they still do.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline UberNobody

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 55
I believe Mr. Rohrabacher's question (House hearing 1:09:50) about waiting for SpaceX to piggyback on its Mars plan is a bit too early.  NASA can't take SpaceX's plan seriously until they are a lot closer to Mars.  But if things go like many on this forum believe, even in a delayed fashion, questions about piggybacking and partnerships will persist.

I'm glad that somebody in congress is asking, even if the answer is no and will stay no for some time.
« Last Edit: 04/17/2015 09:50 pm by UberNobody »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
I just finished watching the House hearing. Not much was said that was unexpected. Questions asked included the following: why cuts to SLS, Orion, planetary science and aerospace? Why the increase to Earth science? Bolden's answer is essentially that the President's NASA FY 2016 budget is a balanced portfolio. Why the delay of SLS' first flight to 2018? Bolden said that it was because of the 70% confidence level requirement. A number of Representatives don't like ARM. Some questions about the progress on James Webb. Bolden says that it's on schedule. 

Palazzo says that NASA should downselect to one commercial crew provider and use Orion on an existing LV.

One Representative asked if downselecting to one commercial crew provider would help accelerate the 2017 date. Bolden said that it would probably do the opposite because the sole commercial crew provider could then dictate the schedule and what they are willing to provide to NASA. He said that Boeing and SpaceX are competing because they want more than 6 missions from NASA; he said that they want to be the provider to NASA forever. Bolden also said that the Orbital accident showed how important it is to have more than one provider. The Representative seemed satisfied with Bolden's answer. 

On Rohrabacher's question about letting SpaceX go to Mars with its own money, Bolden said that nations explore and that commercial companies don't usually lead these efforts unless the government is involved.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2015 03:27 am by yg1968 »

Offline nadreck



On Rohrabacher's question about letting SpaceX go to Mars with its own money, Bolden said that nations explore and that commercial companies don't usually lead these efforts unless the government is involved.

He was a lot more emphatic than that, and while Forbes picked up on it first Thursday, a number of other articles, many headlined with Bolden's words or a paraphrasing of them have come out over the weekend. "No commercial company without the support of NASA and government is going to get to Mars" - I don't particularly agree, though I don't think it will come to that, I think NASA will be a partner with commercial activity.  However the statement, and its heavy repetition in the press, makes me think that while many people might believe it, it in fact is a symptom of the change it denies is even happening.

There have been definite tipping points or critical mass issues that have taken activities/technologies/industries from small scale and expensive to large scale and several orders of magnitude cheaper in very short order even though the small scale version might have existed for years before the critical mass was reached. One example would be fax technology. The earliest fax machines existed in the 1930's and were in general home made amateur radio devices that operated at very low speeds. By the 1950's you could go to a telegraph office with a document and have it "photofaxed" for an exorbitant price, but it would get to it's ultimate destination in a day or so which was faster than mail. Even in the late 70's, while they existed in the commercial sector (I worked at a company that had a pair of them and only ever used them to send data between them and never to any other number), they were still expensive and slow, then in the mid 80's they became ubiquitous in offices, by the 90's they were ubiquitous in home offices.  I don't mean to tie any attribute of fax technology to rocketry here other than the impact of the tipping point.

I think we are poised near that tipping point. I would note that I, and many others believed that in the late 90's with what we thought would be several comms constellations that would, besides revolutionizing communications, provide the incentive for commercial launch providers to take us past that tipping point and it did not happen.  In actual fact it is almost impossible to recognize these tipping points until we are well past them. It just happens that a number of people like myself who would like to see this particular tipping point happen have highly anticipated it and are trying to see it as early as possible.

Still as negative indicators go, this one actually seems reasonable to me. One of these days space stops being 'hard' not because the technology changed vastly, but because the scale at which we apply did.

It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
The earliest fax machines existed in the 1930's and were in general home made amateur radio devices that operated at very low speeds.

Actually, fax machines go further back than that - the idea was first done in the 1800s
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
A clean CR until December 11, 2015 is likely to be passed by Congress before October 1st but even that is a bit complicated:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/254886-boehner-gop-settle-on-strategy-to-prevent-oct-1-shutdown

Quote
While the plan would mean supporting a short-term bill introduced in the Senate on Thursday to keep the government open through Dec. 11 [...]

Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) said Thursday that Republicans need to realize that the only way to prevent a shutdown is a “clean” spending bill.
« Last Edit: 09/25/2015 02:10 am by yg1968 »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
"NASA Updates Government Shutdown Plans"
http://spacenews.com/nasa-updates-government-shutdown-plans/

House Speaker Boehner's resignation sounds like it might stabilize things enough for a 8-10 week clean CR, but it wasn't completely expected.  We'll see what type of CR makes it to the President's desk next week (if anything).

NASA.gov landing page:
https://www.nasa.gov/agency/furlough/index.html

Direct link to PDF of letter from NASA to OMB here:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_shutdown_plan_20150925.pdf

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
The House has passed the "clean" continuing resolution that the Senate passed yesterdayearlier today, to or through December 11; that goes to the White House for the President to sign.

Quote
4:58:10 P.M.    H.R. 719    On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 277 - 151 (Roll no. 528).

Edit: I haven't found the text for this specific Senate Amendment (#2689) for this legislative "vehicle" (HR 719) [reference], but it may have included the requested anomaly for Space Shuttle Program Closeout.  (But not the more contentious Commercial Crew one.)

Edit 2: the text is in the Congressional Record for last Thursday (24 Sept.), pages S6946-S6948...the text will eventually be updated elsewhere.  It does include the SSP Closeout text (to continue through FY 2021).
« Last Edit: 09/30/2015 09:58 pm by psloss »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Additional note via SpacePolicyOnline on "continuing appropriations for FY 2016":
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/congress-passes-short-term-continuing-resolution-for-fy2016

Quote
Agencies are funded at their FY2015 levels except that there is an across-the-board 0.2108 percent reduction to ensure the total does not exceed agreed upon budget caps.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
« Last Edit: 10/01/2015 12:30 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Here is an article on the commercial crew analomy which NASA wanted (but which isn't in the CR):

http://spacenews.com/nasa-seeks-spending-flexibility-to-keep-commercial-crew-on-schedule/
« Last Edit: 10/01/2015 12:39 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
« Last Edit: 10/26/2015 04:09 pm by yg1968 »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
A budget deal is near:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/258091-white-house-gop-near-two-year-budget-deal
Hopefully, but it sounds like there's still some serious negotiation ahead with groups on both sides of the aisle.  And it sounds like an appropriations roll-up will come closer to when the current CR expires in December:
Quote
Reaching an accord on the top-line budget numbers will allow the leaders of the Appropriations committees in both chambers to put together an omnibus spending package before Christmas.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
According to the House Rules Committee site, the compromise on budget caps and debt ceiling is called the "Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2015," and is positioned as an amendment to the Senate amendment to HR 1314; links to recent text here (at least for the moment):
https://rules.house.gov/bill/114/hr-1314-sa-0

If this (or something similar) makes it through both chambers and is signed by the President (probably next week), then the previously mentioned omnibus appropriations bill could follow down the road.  That would be the one that would include NASA-specific language.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
According to the Hill, it seems likely to pass the House on Wednesday:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/258302-budget-deal-sailing-toward-passage

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
According to the Hill, it seems likely to pass the House on Wednesday:
It did, 266-167; the roll call:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll579.xml

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
According to the Hill, it seems likely to pass the House on Wednesday:
It did, 266-167; the roll call:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll579.xml
Now let's see what the Senate does. The Senate is a mess right now over FY2016 in general.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Tags:
 

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