Big push on how it'll have to be international. More avoiding on if to go to the Moon or NEO, simply saying Mars is the big interest.
I was hoping to hear more about "Moon next" vs. "NEO next". Bolden seemed to avoid the question in regards to which path the international community prefers. From what I've seen, both international partners and potential commercial partners seem more interested in the "Moon next" approach. Any thoughts on this?
Quote from: lunardinosaur on 11/17/2011 03:51 pmI was hoping to hear more about "Moon next" vs. "NEO next". Bolden seemed to avoid the question in regards to which path the international community prefers. From what I've seen, both international partners and potential commercial partners seem more interested in the "Moon next" approach. Any thoughts on this?The only statement was that Mars is the ultimate goal, sometime in 2030. We would not be going there in this version of SLS / MPCV. Need to continue to research the technology. I enjoyed Rubio's question about how do we get people excited about space again. I didn't exactly like Bolden's non-answer. Mars in 20 years doesn't do it.
I've had day job stuff to work on. Seems to be mainly General Bolden avoiding talking about missions, as he wants to talk about access to ISS.
Someone said if I heard correctly "We need to develop the methodology to gather the requirements".
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 11/17/2011 03:08 pmI've had day job stuff to work on. Seems to be mainly General Bolden avoiding talking about missions, as he wants to talk about access to ISS.Who are the two people sitting behind Sen. Nelson?
Quote from: ChileVerde on 11/17/2011 06:41 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 11/17/2011 03:08 pmI've had day job stuff to work on. Seems to be mainly General Bolden avoiding talking about missions, as he wants to talk about access to ISS.Who are the two people sitting behind Sen. Nelson?Republican Senate staffer Jeff Bingham is on the right of Senator Nelson. I don't know the other person. Likely another Senate staffer.
Comment removed due to profanity
Quote from: yg1968 on 11/17/2011 07:02 pmQuote from: ChileVerde on 11/17/2011 06:41 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 11/17/2011 03:08 pmI've had day job stuff to work on. Seems to be mainly General Bolden avoiding talking about missions, as he wants to talk about access to ISS.Who are the two people sitting behind Sen. Nelson?Republican Senate staffer Jeff Bingham is on the right of Senator Nelson. I don't know the other person. Likely another Senate staffer. Ann Zulkosky, Democrat Professional Staff for Science and Space; counterpart to the other guy. ;-)
Quote from: Lars_J on 11/18/2011 07:16 amComment removed due to profanityComments such as this should keep in mind just how close we recently came to NASA having NOTHING for HSF. It is sad to see the garden for SLS hate and phobia being started and cultivated in the exact same manner as it was for the Ares vehicles a few years back. Soon the internet will be ripe with the dribble seen quoted above depicting the SLS as the spawn of satin and anything "commercial" no matter how far-fetched, being consicered a God-sent gift. We need, and must have BOTH private programs and a federal program. I'm sorry that some cannot see that- of course, for some, it's probaby more fun to rip down things with your keyboard than it is to construct them.
I believe that 2016 date has problems internally within NASA, since the CCT flights aren't supposed to be ready until 2017. Having astronauts arrive at the ISS on an Orion before the Dragon / CST-100 / DreamChaser is certified would not go well within the halls of NASA.
Can't make Commercial Crew happen two years earlier if you have HALF the funding requested and what Boeing said is needed. Sorry.And if SLS becomes nearly the same bloated monster as Ares V, why should it get a free pass on criticism?I am angry with short-sighted members of Congress holding American access to space hostage to money being sent to their districts, and playing political games with it. Shame!
[NASA isn't planning to have a crewed flight until >2020 which is nearly 10 years away? *YAWN*.
spaceflight. The next US-indigenous human spaceflight will occur in the middle of this decade and will be on a commercial crew vehicle.
I was hoping to hear more about "Moon next" vs. "NEO next". Bolden seemed to avoid the question ...
At the Global Exploration Roadmap conference the consensus seemed to be L1/L2 first as this allows the decision about Moon or LEO to be delayed. ... Therefore need to make do with what is what is available with minimum alterations. L1/L2 station may use ISS nodes and might be placed at ISS before being moved out to L1/L2, and maybe moved between various Lagrange points. Big problem is how to move it out to L1/L2, how to make the stage affordable.
"We need to develop the methodology to gather the requirements".
...a Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle that will enable us to launch a test flight in 2017 uncrewed and a crewed flight in 2021, and get to Mars by 2030.
Whichever side of the SLS debate you are on, don‘t we all agree that demanding the president to come up with a plan to make the SLS look like a good idea is unlikely to produce something very inspiring?
It is sad to see the garden for SLS hate and phobia being started and cultivated in the exact same manner as it was for the Ares vehicles a few years back.
They should just give the billions they are spending on SLS to SpaceX/Elon and say "Go build us a Deep Space system" and I bet we would be doing crewed BEO missions inside of 5 years.
You can be sure that China is not debating their HSF future. They're making things happen. This is what we should be doing...making SLS and Commercial Crew happen instead of debating/fighting over it.
She also mentioned that NASA's science budget should be expanded, but the extra funds should come from other science programs outside of NASA.
There's a dynamic to the SLS/MPCV funding that's somewhat counter-intuitive. Shifting funding to support an uncrewed test flight sooner than 2017 won't make a crewed flight before 2021 less expensive. And shifting funding to begin crewed flights before 2021 would make it impossibly expensive to get to Mars by 2030! Once crewed flights begin, even at an agonizingly low flight rate, the projected budgets won't support both operating those flights and simultaneously developing the technologies needed for a Mars mission. So much of the Mars mission technology development needs to get paid for before crewed missions start or it won't get paid for at all.So even if they could reach the earlier milestones sooner, that would hinder rather than help the overall plan.(Regarding the notion that NASA could just give all the funding to SpaceX and ask them to build a deep space system, wouldn't that approach be a clear violation of federal regulations?)
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/18/2011 04:08 pmCan't make Commercial Crew happen two years earlier if you have HALF the funding requested and what Boeing said is needed. Sorry.And if SLS becomes nearly the same bloated monster as Ares V, why should it get a free pass on criticism?I am angry with short-sighted members of Congress holding American access to space hostage to money being sent to their districts, and playing political games with it. Shame!Why is NASA on the hook to completely fund commercial? The money allocated so far is reasonable to me, since they are private firms
I find it completely ironic that people are complaining that commercial crew is (worst-case) scheduled for 2017, but are completely happy to see funding for a return of US human spaceflight capability cut in half. Self. Fulfilling. Prophecy.
Whatever brings that capability back.
For the love of all that is good in the world.This is all madness! We are talking about one of our most important national endeavors. We can't find 3B-5B more a year? That's pocket change found in the sofas of the Defense Dept.
Was Ares V ever awarded?
Quote from: sdsds on 11/18/2011 06:20 pmThere's a dynamic to the SLS/MPCV funding that's somewhat counter-intuitive. Shifting funding to support an uncrewed test flight sooner than 2017 won't make a crewed flight before 2021 less expensive. And shifting funding to begin crewed flights before 2021 would make it impossibly expensive to get to Mars by 2030! Once crewed flights begin, even at an agonizingly low flight rate, the projected budgets won't support both operating those flights and simultaneously developing the technologies needed for a Mars mission. So much of the Mars mission technology development needs to get paid for before crewed missions start or it won't get paid for at all.So even if they could reach the earlier milestones sooner, that would hinder rather than help the overall plan.(Regarding the notion that NASA could just give all the funding to SpaceX and ask them to build a deep space system, wouldn't that approach be a clear violation of federal regulations?)Let's be clear that this version of SLS/Orion is never ever going to Mars. Even Nelson mentioned we needed a game-changing technology to enable us to travel to Mars in 39 days or less. SLS is going to the Moon, and maybe an asteriod. But, is it possible to go to Mars without practicing and developing the technology for a remote planetary base on the Moon first ? I hate that argument that we can't afford to fly missions with the current platofrm and perform R&D of the next platform at the same time. That only gets you to the point we are at today, paying the Russians for the priviledge of utilizing our space station, because we cancelled the CRV due to budget issues. When it's comes down to pay now or pay later, it's almost always better to pay now.
Quote from: Khadgars on 11/18/2011 07:01 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 11/18/2011 04:08 pmCan't make Commercial Crew happen two years earlier if you have HALF the funding requested and what Boeing said is needed. Sorry.And if SLS becomes nearly the same bloated monster as Ares V, why should it get a free pass on criticism?I am angry with short-sighted members of Congress holding American access to space hostage to money being sent to their districts, and playing political games with it. Shame!Why is NASA on the hook to completely fund commercial? The money allocated so far is reasonable to me, since they are private firmsWhy is NASA on the hook to completely fund SLS? There's really no chance of an external market for SLS, why not hold it to a higher standard than commercial crew which does have that chance? One capability is basically useless for the rest of the economy (i.e. SLS), the other is only POTENTIALLY useless (but even then is better at indirect stimulation of the US aerospace sector than SLS), but still a better deal for NASA.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/18/2011 08:07 pmQuote from: Khadgars on 11/18/2011 07:01 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 11/18/2011 04:08 pmCan't make Commercial Crew happen two years earlier if you have HALF the funding requested and what Boeing said is needed. Sorry.And if SLS becomes nearly the same bloated monster as Ares V, why should it get a free pass on criticism?I am angry with short-sighted members of Congress holding American access to space hostage to money being sent to their districts, and playing political games with it. Shame!Why is NASA on the hook to completely fund commercial? The money allocated so far is reasonable to me, since they are private firmsWhy is NASA on the hook to completely fund SLS? There's really no chance of an external market for SLS, why not hold it to a higher standard than commercial crew which does have that chance? One capability is basically useless for the rest of the economy (i.e. SLS), the other is only POTENTIALLY useless (but even then is better at indirect stimulation of the US aerospace sector than SLS), but still a better deal for NASA.NASA will own SLS, it will not own any of the commercial vehicles, that is why they are on the hook to fully fund it SLS.I personally would love to see increased funding to all commercial spaceflight, but why is NASA the sole source of income to make commercial flights a reality? If they're going to completely own their vehicles then I don't see a problem with them shouldering a large burden of the cost.
Quote from: rcoppola on 11/18/2011 10:40 pmFor the love of all that is good in the world.This is all madness! We are talking about one of our most important national endeavors. We can't find 3B-5B more a year? That's pocket change found in the sofas of the Defense Dept.Amen.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 11/18/2011 11:38 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 11/18/2011 10:40 pmFor the love of all that is good in the world.This is all madness! We are talking about one of our most important national endeavors. We can't find 3B-5B more a year? That's pocket change found in the sofas of the Defense Dept.Amen.Well, get going, man!
On the track "Arrival" by Pale 3, Beth Hirsch sings: "Another season has arrived; maybe the best one of your life."That aptly describes how I see NASA's situation. The season during which the Space Shuttle program was being wound down has passed. Thatwas an autumnal season, and with the cancellation of the Constellationprogram, it looked for awhile like NASA might be facing a long, coldwinter, one so deep that NASA might not survive it in a form thatmost spaceflight enthusiasts who remember Apollo would recognize.But it now looks like the winter might have been a mild one afterall. How did that happen? It might have been due to some nearlyheroic work done over the past months by some in Congress who havebeen long-time supports of NASA. Or maybe it was pure chance, ormaybe the doom and gloom forecasts of a freezing cold winter wereoverly pessimistic from the beginning.In any case, the vernal awakening at NASA is becoming almostpalpable. It looks like Congress and the Administration havenegotiated a true multilateral compromise for the NASA budget.SLS and MPCV get a huge share of funding. But there is alsosome funding left over for commercial crew and science. Nothingin human spaceflight, except ISS, happens right away. But there'sthe strong hope of some kind of U.S. human spaceflight programin the years ahead, either commercial LEO or NASA-captive BEO, ormaybe even both.Do the doomsayers on this thread not see the seasons turning thus?
There's a dynamic to the SLS/MPCV funding that's somewhat counter-intuitive. Shifting funding to support an uncrewed test flight sooner than 2017 won't make a crewed flight before 2021 less expensive. And shifting funding to begin crewed flights before 2021 would make it impossibly expensive to get to Mars by 2030! ...So even if they could reach the earlier milestones sooner, that would hinder rather than help the overall plan.
You can be sure China has a more efficient decision making process than the US, all authoritarian countries do.
And people need to take a wider perspective when talking about "US human spaceflight". It does not mean SLS. And not Orion/MPCV. Nor commercial crew. "US human spaceflight" is all of the above, and more. Whatever brings that capability back.
We can't find 3B-5B more a year?
My eyes were glazing over with KBH questions about SLS to Charlie, seems like she doesn’t trust NASA very much.
Quote from: link=topic=27281.msg831067#msg831067 date=1321714906My eyes were glazing over with KBH questions about SLS to Charlie, seems like she doesn’t trust NASA very much. IMO, she doen't trust the NASA ADMINISTRATION.( nor the White House ). I don't blame her one bit.Can you imagine 10 days on orbit with Bill Nelson ?Uh... I ..... hope..... it's........ a ...... nice... day ...... uh ......
U.S. dollars and jobs go to Russia
Quote from: Rocket Science on 11/19/2011 03:20 pmU.S. dollars and jobs go to RussiaWhat US jobs are now in Russia?
My eyes were glazing over with KBH questions about SLS to Charlie, seems like she doesn’t trust NASA very much. Cutting commercial funding to roughly half seems to concern no one…
I just don't understand how a "healthy" funding level for 4 commercial crew vehicles all together is about one third the amount for just Orion. There's a huge disconnect here, where a very, very important short-term need is being short-changed in order to pay for something that is basically guaranteed to not be operable until far after.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/19/2011 04:07 pmI just don't understand how a "healthy" funding level for 4 commercial crew vehicles all together is about one third the amount for just Orion. There's a huge disconnect here, where a very, very important short-term need is being short-changed in order to pay for something that is basically guaranteed to not be operable until far after.Well, I guess the notion of "healthy" is somewhat subjective, but I don't think I claimed it was "healthy." Even at $500m it is rather "anemic," but that was a "compromise" funding level in the 2010 authorization--meaning it was far better than the "nothing" that some preferred. But understand, the only reason commercial crew is being "short-changed" is because the Administration refuses to bring new money to the table in the form of a top-line increase in NASA's budget, which would eliminate the internal "food-fight" that results from maintaining a flat-line budget level while trying to initiate major new development efforts. It really IS that simple. (I recognize it's not a "simple" matter to FIND that additional money from outside of NASA, but on the other hand, there IS 99.9 percent of the federal budget in which to LOOK for it.)
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 11/19/2011 04:35 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 11/19/2011 04:07 pmI just don't understand how a "healthy" funding level for 4 commercial crew vehicles all together is about one third the amount for just Orion. There's a huge disconnect here, where a very, very important short-term need is being short-changed in order to pay for something that is basically guaranteed to not be operable until far after.Well, I guess the notion of "healthy" is somewhat subjective, but I don't think I claimed it was "healthy." Even at $500m it is rather "anemic," but that was a "compromise" funding level in the 2010 authorization--meaning it was far better than the "nothing" that some preferred. But understand, the only reason commercial crew is being "short-changed" is because the Administration refuses to bring new money to the table in the form of a top-line increase in NASA's budget, which would eliminate the internal "food-fight" that results from maintaining a flat-line budget level while trying to initiate major new development efforts. It really IS that simple. (I recognize it's not a "simple" matter to FIND that additional money from outside of NASA, but on the other hand, there IS 99.9 percent of the federal budget in which to LOOK for it.)At the moment much of the federal goverment is trying to reduce spending via reduction in funding to 2008 level and so forth. I don't think NASA should be spared a cut when other more important organizations are getting cut too. Sorry if it is between a whole lot of things and NASA, NASA will get the cut first.
We have just had a decision about demanning the ISS.
Since the Ares 1 was due to fly this year the group of people who fueled the Shuttle with LOX/H2 are likely to be the people who would now be fueling the Ares 1 Upper stage with LOX/H2
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 11/18/2011 11:38 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 11/18/2011 10:40 pmFor the love of all that is good in the world.This is all madness! We are talking about one of our most important national endeavors. We can't find 3B-5B more a year? That's pocket change found in the sofas of the Defense Dept.Amen.Unless the Super comittee is able to cut a deal before Thanksgiving, the defense department's budget is going to take another 500 Billion hit. They may need to start searching thru the sofa themselves for spare change.
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 11/17/2011 03:32 pmShe also mentioned that NASA's science budget should be expanded, but the extra funds should come from other science programs outside of NASA. Not HSF related, but... I hope nothing comes of this idea.
Quote from: Khadgars on 11/19/2011 06:09 pmlol, DOD spending is so out of control they can lose billions of dollars and have no idea where it went and no one would care. I have several friends in the marines, told me stories where they would purchase Esclades to transport supplies in Iraq and Afghanistan and when one would get a flat they would just torch the whole vehicle and buy a new one.Uh, no.
lol, DOD spending is so out of control they can lose billions of dollars and have no idea where it went and no one would care. I have several friends in the marines, told me stories where they would purchase Esclades to transport supplies in Iraq and Afghanistan and when one would get a flat they would just torch the whole vehicle and buy a new one.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 11/19/2011 02:01 pmMy eyes were glazing over with KBH questions about SLS to Charlie, seems like she doesn’t trust NASA very much. Cutting commercial funding to roughly half seems to concern no one…First, commercial crew was "cut" from the President's REQUEST for 2012 of $850m. That amount was $350m ABOVE the authorized amount of $500m for commercial crew for FY 2012. The House appropriations provided $312m for FY 2012, which was the same as enacted for FY 2011. The Senate appropriations provided the full authorized amount of $500m. The conference basically split the difference, and provided $406m, or a reduction of $94m from the REQUEST, but $94m ABOVE the FY 2011 amount. So commercial crew was not CUT. It just wasn't INCREASED as much as the President (or the Senate, though obviously to a lesser degree) would have liked. Long involved answer, as usual, but I hope that helps explain the focus on that issue by the Senator. (edited for better clarity, I hope, hehe)
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 11/19/2011 05:29 pmWe have just had a decision about demanning the ISS.That one flew past me! When is the US demanning the ISS?
QuoteSince the Ares 1 was due to fly this year the group of people who fueled the Shuttle with LOX/H2 are likely to be the people who would now be fueling the Ares 1 Upper stage with LOX/H2So the Russians are using American money to hire more ground crew?
Quote from: OV-106 on 11/19/2011 08:04 pmQuote from: Khadgars on 11/19/2011 06:09 pmlol, DOD spending is so out of control they can lose billions of dollars and have no idea where it went and no one would care. I have several friends in the marines, told me stories where they would purchase Esclades to transport supplies in Iraq and Afghanistan and when one would get a flat they would just torch the whole vehicle and buy a new one.Uh, no. Uh yes, I'll send you a link since its way off topic, but my point was in response that the DoD has plenty of money to spare on top of the current budget cuts that are coming their way. I could only wish it would be sent NASA's way.
True. Buran is making a comeback!
I find it quite funny that some people (A_M_Swallow being one of the recent ones along these lines) keep implying that Shuttle would somehow have saved us from relying on the Russians like we are now, and so it would've somehow be alright now that Congress is short-changing commercial crew. While we still had Shuttle, we were almost just as reliant on Soyuz, since Soyuz has been used for virtually all crew rotation since ISS was placed in orbit and Soyuz has served as the sole lifeboat since ISS was placed in orbit. If there was a, say, yearlong stand-down of Soyuz, even an indefinite Shuttle extension wouldn't have saved us from temporarily demanning ISS.The myth that Shuttle extension could've somehow served as a substitute for commercial crew (with lifeboat) needs to die.