Author Topic: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request  (Read 150230 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #260 on: 02/24/2017 09:10 pm »
The House will take up the NASA Authorization bill on Monday:
https://twitter.com/Pat_DefDaily/status/835240330983272449

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #261 on: 02/25/2017 09:50 am »
... a report and Orion on a Delta IV Heavy ....

Now that I think about it, haven't we seen this movie before?  In 2011, joek analyzed the attached ULA paper from 2010 and derived a cost of $1.77 billion for human-rating Delta IV Heavy.  I seem to recall another figure of $2.4 billion that was floating around back then too, though I can't find it now. $1.77 billion in 2010 would be about $2 billion now.

I guess the politicos have forgotten all of this.  It appears to be yet another case of politicians trying to do the engineers' jobs.

Note that, per joek's analysis, it would actually be cheaper to activate and human-rate Atlas V Heavy!

Vacuous fun fact: one of the authors of the attached paper is something of a celebrity.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2017 09:53 am by Proponent »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #262 on: 02/26/2017 12:42 pm »
$2 billion? That's absurd. It probably includes a bunch of arbitrary specifications for what "human rated" means. The question ought to be, "is it roughly as safe as Soyuz?" In which case, the answer is that it already is, provided you add some hooks for triggering an abort when needed.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #263 on: 02/26/2017 05:36 pm »
... a report and Orion on a Delta IV Heavy ....

Now that I think about it, haven't we seen this movie before?  In 2011, joek analyzed the attached ULA paper from 2010 and derived a cost of $1.77 billion for human-rating Delta IV Heavy.  I seem to recall another figure of $2.4 billion that was floating around back then too, though I can't find it now. $1.77 billion in 2010 would be about $2 billion now.

I guess the politicos have forgotten all of this.  It appears to be yet another case of politicians trying to do the engineers' jobs.

Note that, per joek's analysis, it would actually be cheaper to activate and human-rate Atlas V Heavy!

Vacuous fun fact: one of the authors of the attached paper is something of a celebrity.
The last figure I heard was not even close to $ 1.77 billion. More like $ 600 million.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2783
  • Likes Given: 1097
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #264 on: 02/26/2017 11:23 pm »
The last figure I heard was not even close to $ 1.77 billion. More like $ 600 million.

The $1.77B was based on numbers provided by ULA at that time (2010). That $1.77B required only the numbers published by ULA and some simple math (which I provided in the original post).

But as kraisee pointed out then, that number may have included costs for pad mods/amortization/write-down/whatever (ULA did not provide numbers to that detail).  Or maybe something else.

So what has changed between then and now to reduce $1.77B to $600M?  Does it include all the costs factored in the original paper?  Those questions are probably best directed to ULA.  (Although they might require a nudge as the original paper has has apparently disappeared from their site?)

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2783
  • Likes Given: 1097
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #265 on: 02/26/2017 11:45 pm »
$2 billion? That's absurd. ...
That was ULA's documented claim and position at the time ($1.77B in 2010 to be precise).  Yes it is was absurd.  Yes it is absurd.  [Editorial on incumbent provider prognostications-predictions-warnings-etc redacted].

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #266 on: 02/27/2017 09:31 am »
The House will take up the NASA Authorization bill on Monday:
https://twitter.com/Pat_DefDaily/status/835240330983272449

I just noticed something: S. 443 is actually an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill.  It's unusual to see an authorization for just one fiscal year.  I wonder what's going on.  I should have realized this,  because NASA's appropriations are generally specified in a much larger bill, which affects more than just NASA.

Attached is a cleaned-up version of the bill, which has the virtue of being searchable.

The Majority Leader's website confirms that S. 443 will be taken up today under "suspension of the rules," meaning that the full House will vote on the Senate's bill rather than producing its own.  NASA's famous 2010 authorization bill was passed the same way.  Today's schedule shows short speeches for a number of other bills to be considered under suspension of the rules, but not for S. 443, so I presume there won't be any discussion.  Votes are set to begin at 18.30 EST.

It looks to me as though by the end of the day, NASA's course will be pretty much set, barring an unlikely presidential veto.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #267 on: 02/27/2017 09:50 am »
OK, here's another figure for human-rating Delta IV, also from ULA, this time from 2009:  $500M plus $800M for the pad.  That's $1.3 billion all told, which makes it about $2.4 billion today, with 8 years' worth of inflation at 2%.  If you leave out the pad work, it's not quite $600M today.  But why would you leave out the pad?  It is essential, and it has not been done in the meantime.
« Last Edit: 02/27/2017 09:50 am by Proponent »

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #268 on: 02/27/2017 01:34 pm »
The House will take up the NASA Authorization bill on Monday:
https://twitter.com/Pat_DefDaily/status/835240330983272449

I just noticed something: S. 443 is actually an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill. It's unusual to see an authorization for just one fiscal year.   I wonder what's going on.  I should have realized this,  because NASA's appropriations are generally specified in a much larger bill, which affects more than just NASA.

Attached is a cleaned-up version of the bill, which has the virtue of being searchable.

The Majority Leader's website confirms that S. 443 will be taken up today under "suspension of the rules," meaning that the full House will vote on the Senate's bill rather than producing its own.  NASA's famous 2010 authorization bill was passed the same way.  Today's schedule shows short speeches for a number of other bills to be considered under suspension of the rules, but not for S. 443, so I presume there won't be any discussion.  Votes are set to begin at 18.30 EST.

It looks to me as though by the end of the day, NASA's course will be pretty much set, barring an unlikely presidential veto.

So many reasons to change the architecture and hardware as ~200mT/yr was all that was required for Mars DRM 5, so 2 launches of an unsafe LV and capsule at 10X cost, with zero possibility of reuse is all that is required (plus Bs for the disposable hardware elements) for BEO apartheid for the journey to ...  the exclusion of the rest of the US, the World, reuse, and new technology ... 
« Last Edit: 02/28/2017 07:32 pm by muomega0 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #269 on: 02/27/2017 01:59 pm »
The House will take up the NASA Authorization bill on Monday:
https://twitter.com/Pat_DefDaily/status/835240330983272449

I just noticed something: S. 443 is actually an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill.  It's unusual to see an authorization for just one fiscal year.  I wonder what's going on.  I should have realized this,  because NASA's appropriations are generally specified in a much larger bill, which affects more than just NASA.

Attached is a cleaned-up version of the bill, which has the virtue of being searchable.

The Majority Leader's website confirms that S. 443 will be taken up today under "suspension of the rules," meaning that the full House will vote on the Senate's bill rather than producing its own.  NASA's famous 2010 authorization bill was passed the same way.  Today's schedule shows short speeches for a number of other bills to be considered under suspension of the rules, but not for S. 443, so I presume there won't be any discussion.  Votes are set to begin at 18.30 EST.

It looks to me as though by the end of the day, NASA's course will be pretty much set, barring an unlikely presidential veto.

It's actually a joint Senate-House version of the bill. It says so at the beginning of the bill. It's only one year because it's a transition bill. The next authorization bill should have more input from the Trump Administration and should not be a transition bill.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #270 on: 02/28/2017 04:52 am »
Quote from: Jeff Foust
The NASA authorization bill dropped from today’s House schedule has been delayed to next week, according to a spokesman. No reason given.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/836266848844840961

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #271 on: 02/28/2017 05:02 am »
Quote from: Jeff Foust
The NASA authorization bill dropped from today’s House schedule has been delayed to next week, according to a spokesman. No reason given.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/836266848844840961

*pan to a SpaceX dragon flying by the Moon*
Gee I wonder whatever for...

Seriously though, sooner or later at one of their meetings someone's going to come out and say commercial flight is starting to surpass NASA itself.  Given a nickname for SLS is "Senate Launch System" I'd understand why they'd hesitate to admit it; it was an idea backed more by Congress rather than Obama's administration at the time.  I would hope there is someway to accommodate both SLS and commercial flight; if nothing else even at best it's going to be nearly a decade before a commercial counterpart to SLS' payload class is available.
« Last Edit: 02/28/2017 05:03 am by redliox »
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Liked: 322
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #272 on: 02/28/2017 01:35 pm »
Quote from: Jeff Foust
The NASA authorization bill dropped from today’s House schedule has been delayed to next week, according to a spokesman. No reason given.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/836266848844840961

*pan to a SpaceX dragon flying by the Moon*
Gee I wonder whatever for...



Given politics, I'd say to get time to cost out an increase to SLS's budget to do a fast program to make an ECLSS for Orion to have crew on EM-1.
« Last Edit: 02/28/2017 01:36 pm by jgoldader »
Recovering astronomer

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #273 on: 02/28/2017 02:00 pm »
Neither is likely. The House must pass it without modifications; otherwise it has to be passed by the Senate again. It's unlikely that there will be any changes to the bill at this point.

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #274 on: 02/28/2017 05:15 pm »
Neither is likely. The House must pass it without modifications; otherwise it has to be passed by the Senate again. It's unlikely that there will be any changes to the bill at this point.
Agreed. Unlikely to remain unchanged now that SpaceX threw a bombshell into the game yesterday.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #275 on: 02/28/2017 06:18 pm »
I said the opposite. I don't think that the bill will change. Remember that this only covers FY 2017.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #276 on: 02/28/2017 10:45 pm »
Quote from: Marcia Smith
Three sections are cited as having raised flags at the White House and/or the Department of Justice as needing further review: 303, 305 and 702. [...] Some sources are optimistic that this is a temporary problem that will soon be resolved.  Others think is an indication that certain parties want to sink the legislation permanently. What happens next is unclear.   Stay tuned.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-vote-onnasa-authorization-bill-delayed#.WLTTjkb32W4.twitter
« Last Edit: 02/28/2017 10:46 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #277 on: 03/01/2017 08:23 am »
Very interesting.  Smith identifies the three sections of the bill that are causing trouble:

  303: Transition plan for transforming ISS to commercial operation, NASA being one of several customers;
  305: Indemnification for commercial launch and re-entry services provided to NASA; and
  702: Space Technology Program.

On the surface of it, then, SpaceX's bombshell would seem to have nothing at all to do with the delay in the House's taking up the bill.  What the three provisions above seem to have in common is a focus on commercial services; perhaps this is an oldspace-versus-newspace flap.  A House member whose district receives ISS funding, for example, might not like Section 303.
« Last Edit: 03/01/2017 08:34 am by Proponent »

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1860
  • Germany
  • Liked: 4010
  • Likes Given: 2738
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #278 on: 03/01/2017 09:37 am »
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control

FY16 Omnibus
Education: $37 million

FY17 Request:
Education: 0

Is that a fluke and education is now allocated under something else or is that just no longer a priority?
What is affected by this? No more student research on ISS flights?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #279 on: 03/05/2017 01:59 pm »
Quote from: Jeff Foust
The NASA auth. bill that was on, then off, the House schedule this past week is back on for consideration Tuesday:

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/838059534618882053

Quote from: Jeff Foust
The reason it wasn’t considered last week was simply a procedural issue, and nothing to do with the bill’s content, from what I understand.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/838060246304194560
« Last Edit: 03/05/2017 02:01 pm by yg1968 »

Tags:
 

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