Author Topic: Senate Hearing on NASA's Human Space Exploration - Nov 17, 2011  (Read 30756 times)

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3431
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1602
  • Likes Given: 50
NASA's Human Space Exploration: Direction, Strategy, and Progress
Democratic Press Office - (202) 224-8374
Nov 17 2011 10:00 AM
Russell Senate Office Building - 253

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space announces a hearing on NASA's human space exploration.

Please note the hearing will also be webcast live via the Senate Commerce Committee website.  Refresh the Commerce Committee homepage 10 minutes prior to the scheduled start time to view the webcast.

Web link here

[Participants list is on L2, but not posted publically yet]

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3431
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1602
  • Likes Given: 50
Witness list has now been published:

Witness Panel 1

    The Honorable Charles F. Bolden Jr.
    Administrator
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Witness Panel 2

    Director Robert D. Cabana
    Kennedy Space Center

    Director Michael L. Coats
    Johnson Space Center
   
    Director Robert M. Lightfoot
    Marshall Space Flight Center

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Just thought I'd point out this hearing has now started...

No 'live' thread?


Edit:  I'd post notes, but my typing is too slow, my live stream is breaking up a lot, and it's 2:30 am here, so I'm off to bed.  :)
« Last Edit: 11/17/2011 02:33 pm by kkattula »

Offline Chris Bergin

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.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2011 03:09 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

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.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

KSC, JSC and MSFC Center Directors on the second panel.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

Anyone got a link to the statements? Mr Lightfoot's reading out a good one on SLS.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

3,500 people were laid off from JSC.

Mr Coats: The team wants direction, are anxious to get started. Excited about 2010 Authorization Act.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
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.

KBH spent significant time speaking with Bolden regarding the 2013 budget request. The committee wanted to make sure NASA/OMB followed thru on the agreed upon future path. She also wanted to state that SLS and commerical were not in competition. The committee wants more funding for commerical, but it does not come from the SLS budget.

She also mentioned that NASA's science budget should be expanded, but the extra funds should come from other science programs outside of NASA.

Offline Chris Bergin

2,500 people were laid off from KSC after STS-135.

Want KSC to be a multi-user space port.

"End of shuttle" been mentioned about 10 times, which is annoying me ;)

==

In fact, this is all more of the "It's been tough but excited about the future" - and thus we're not hearing much new info here. This seems to be all about being happy there's budget direction.

Really want them to throw on a roadmap. It doesn't take this long, if they managed to build the excellent Flexible Path in a shorter time period.

I'm sure the video will be on later. Feel free to add any further comments to the thread.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2011 03:43 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline lunardinosaur

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
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?

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
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?

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.

Offline lunardinosaur

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
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?

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 agree. It's a bit too vague and distant to get many people excited, Mars in 20+ years isn't really anything new. Mars is one of those things that is always 20 years away, and I think many people are doubtful that it's actually going to happen this time. However, I think if they did a better job of laying out more near term goals, it could help build excitement.

It sounds like they're still trying to figure out what those near term goals might be, and hopefully we'll see some exciting plans once they figure it out.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
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?

At the Global Exploration Roadmap conference http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/about/isecg/ger-workshop.html the concensus seemed to be L1/L2 first as this allows the decission about Moon or LEO to be delayed. Realistic budget profiles mean that new (development) program starts are unlikely in the next 5 and maybe up to 10 years. 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.

Alternatives are Orion at L2 for ~21 days or Bigelow stations. Lots of talk on remote presence with rovers on the Moon.

Slightly unreal feel to the whole conference, strong emphasis on science, but much of the suggested science could be done cheaper and/or better by unmanned systems. I missed some of the presentations, but no mention of propellant depot from what I heard, one brief mention of artifical gravity. Many presentations at a 100,000 ft level, each company and space agency presented what they could do, but no one seemed to attempt to synthesise a full plan. Someone said if I heard correctly "We need to develop the methodology to gather the requirements".

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

Who are the two people sitting behind Sen. Nelson?
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
-Comments were made on “destination vs. capability” driven space program.

-General Bolden quoted John Glenn on the importance of ISS.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2011 06:48 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Someone said if I heard correctly "We need to develop the methodology to gather the requirements".

That has to be somebody's .sig.  If it isn't, I want it.
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2011 07:03 pm by yg1968 »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
The webcast archive is available at
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=ea4a6829-c93c-481a-955c-b1e115375934&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a

At about the 53 minute mark there's an interesting exchange going on between Senator Hutchison and Administrator Bolden regarding the 2013 budget.  KBH says, "I'm very hopeful that [the President's 2013 budget proposal] is going to cement our [Senate/Administration] relationship because the original proposal from last time of 1.3 billion is not going to do it."
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
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.

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. ;-)
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
The discussions which took place at this hearing need to get more attention.  For example there's a great exchange between Administrator Bolden, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Nelson about funding SLS/MPCV versus funding Commercial Crew for FY2013.  The involvement of Jack Lew (Director of OMB) is quite explicitly described.  A few excerpts:

KBH (at about 57:35):  "Commercial Crew [...] has never been short-changed by your Administration, but SLS has.  We have now set those priorities and we have agreed to them with you and Mr. Lew.  [...]  Now that we have set these priorities, you're not going to backtrack [in the 2013 request]?"

Bolden (at about 58:10):  "No Ma'am.  We [the Administration] are going to live up to the agreement we made [with Congress] to sufficiently fund 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."

Bolden (at about 58:50) "We will do what is necessary in terms of the allocation of funds so that we do not back off on our commitment to a Space Launch System that can keep us on track for those target dates."

KBH:  (at about 59:10) "I was hoping for that (what I think was) a straight answer.  [...] I will know for sure in February when we do get the President's budget [proposal]."

Nelson (at about 60:05):  "To provide a little more subtext to that colloquy between the two of you, the Administration had originally [...] requested roughly 1.7 for the SLS in FY12.  That ended up being funded at 1.86 in the minibus appropriations.  The Administration had originally requested 916 million for Orion and that ended up being funded at 1.2 billion.  Where you are having some heart burn General Bolden is that the President's request for Commercial Crew was at 850 million; that was funded in the Senate appropriations bill at 500 million but in the House appropriations bill at 312 million, and so we were fortunate to get that up to 406 million on Commercial Crew.  So that's the area that we're going to have to work on." [...] 

KBH (at about 61:48):  "Well that's true but Mr. Chairman what concerns me is the FY2013 budget that was previously submitted before we came to these agreements was 1.3 billion for the SLS which is completely unsupportable if we're going to stay on the agreed to path.  Which is what I was trying to get him to acknowledge; that we weren't going to short-change the SLS in the 13 budget.  [...] If they're going to keep the agreement they're going to have to adjust those numbers.  I know they want more on the Commercial side, but not at the expense of the SLS system, which should have been overtaken by the agreements that we made in my office two months ago."

[Nelson speaking again in favor of Commercial Crew funding.]

KBH (at about 63:27): "What I'm trying to do is suggest to the Administrator that we need to have the support from the President in the next submission so that we aren't in the Appropriations Committee having to redirect funds.  I would be for increasing the Commercial, but I want the President to suggest where we get it and I want to make sure it's not from the SLS."

Nelson (at about 64:00):  "I hope that this message is getting back to Jack Lew down at OMB.  We got a lot of that done in our meeting that you referenced with the head of OMB, and hopefully those agreements are going to continue."
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
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?

I think the political supporters of the SLS must stop asking for the president to come up with a direction to justify it and instead begin producing their own costed proposals that show how it can work and then start asking why not do this.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Comment removed due to profanity

That is my concern too.  It is made worse every time they emphasise the development and construction and don't talk about missions.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2011 06:38 pm by Chris Bergin »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

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. ;-)

Thanx. Impressive beard, BTW. ;-)
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline zerm

  • Hypergolic cartoonist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1319
    • GWS Books dot com
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 19
Comment removed due to profanity

Comments 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.

« Last Edit: 11/18/2011 06:36 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Comment removed due to profanity

Actually, I believe they care very much about schedule. That's why the original bill requested NASA to develop a HLV vehicle using technology that has already been developed, and have it ready to fly by 2016.

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.

Unfortunately NASA foot-dragging is delaying both programs. Commerical crew should be ready in 2015, not that 2017 date on NASA's schedule. Figure out a way to move 2 years of commerical funding forward, and make everyone happy.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2011 06:37 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline Space Pete

Comment removed due to profanity

Comments 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.

My sentiments exactly.

I fully support commercial crew and SLS/MPCV. I don't do this silly either/or debate.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2011 06:37 pm by Chris Bergin »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
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.

I can't see how Orion/MPCV being operational first would be considered a problem by NASA and its political sponsors.

I believe that it is more an issue that the preferred form of SLS cannot meet the 2016 deadline.  They might be close, if they avoid serious engineering problems.  However, the stretched core tank just pushes the project over that mark.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline NYC777

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Syosset, NY
    • All Things 787
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 33
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.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
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!
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

Offline HammerD

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 131
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 0
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!

Well the entire hearing was uninspiring and listening to Bolden squirm all the time is annoying.  He has difficulty giving a straight answer.

NASA isn't planning to have a crewed flight until >2020 which is nearly 10 years away? *YAWN*.

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.

I can't understand why it is going to take them 10 years for the first crewed mission - even with the kind of money they are talking about.  It is ridiculous.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
[NASA isn't planning to have a crewed flight until >2020 which is nearly 10 years away? *YAWN*.

Well, that isn't strictly true.  It is projected to be ten years until MPCV flies on SLS with a crew but that won't be the next NASA human spaceflight.  The next US-indigenous human spaceflight will occur in the middle of this decade and will be on a commercial crew vehicle.  Just because it isn't a NASA-operated vehicle doesn't mean that it won't be a NASA mission and won't rely probably 100% on NASA funding.

I agree that SLS's 'worst case' figures are bad but let's not go arm-waving as the situation isn't so simplistically black and white.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
spaceflight.  The next US-indigenous human spaceflight will occur in the middle of this decade and will be on a commercial crew vehicle.

Not at current funding... we already see the dates going to right from 2015 to 2016 for commercial crew... I'm sure we will see 2017 at current funding levels...

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
I was hoping to hear more about "Moon next" vs. "NEO next". Bolden seemed to avoid the question ...

Me too.  Mr. Bolden has been instructed to stress non-commitment, I guess.

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.

Pragmatically speaking, assembling an EML-1 station in LEO, and then tugging the whole thing to EML-1 seems impracticable.  However, the cis-lunar tug should be able to take, say, at least three LEO assembled pieces to EML-1.  That would separate in-space assembly so as to reduce the number of trips back and forth.


Quote
"We need to develop the methodology to gather the requirements".

That is such a disappointing statement.  Just to be snarkastic, how about sharing the methodology which gathered the requirement of going to Mars when we can't even launch crew to LEO?

Quote from: Mr. Bolden, per sdsds's nested quote
...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.

Six years before the first unmanned flight on an LV made of legacy, man-rated equipment, and another four years for the manned flight.  Followed by, I suppose a straight faced comment that, in the next nine years, they'll then assemble and successfully launch the martian mothership?  This is a falsehood.

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?

No, I don't agree.  The Prez could say this:

We could build a 70 ton SLS, and launch it unmanned by the end of 2012, with the intent of resupplying ISS and installing the new LIDS system.  While this is happening, we could be designing the first part of a hypergolic LEO depot and fleshing out the large scale prop transfer that it would need.  We'd launch that module on another 70 ton SLS in 2013.  By then, we'd have a Dragon and an MPCV, available for launching on their own vehicles, since both programs would be properly funded.  ... And so forth, along the lines of my thinking, scattered about the forum.

Neither the Prez, nor his advisors, nor the opposing party, believe in such an incremental approach, where each step builds on the previous step.  Where the biggest smallest piece is 70 tons.  And cooperation is the rule.  And achievement the focus.

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.

I'm all for SLS.  Build it on time: 2013. Build it on budget: $5B, $6B max.  Launch it unmanned, waste no time on manned or larger vehicles.  Fund our existing rockets for MPCV/Orion.  Fund the new guys for their crewed development.  Don't worry if they're not ready until 2015.  There's plenty to do.  It is not a battle betweeen public and private.  Start building the hypergolic depot in LEO.  Start building SLS-2.  Yada yada.

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.

No, this is unbridled enthusiasm without a sense of the difficulties causing the delays that they are experiencing at the moment.  There's nothing wrong in principle for NASA to build SLS.   It is the principles of the policymakers (executive and legislative) and their corporate minders which preclude timely accomplishment.

Even so, commercial crew is scheduled to be underfunded, and SLS management is not accountable.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
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?)
« Last Edit: 11/18/2011 06:23 pm by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline SpaceXSLS

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
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.

Nature of the beast. You can be sure China has a more efficient decision making process than the US, all authoritarian countries do. If governments only ever made the 'right' decision, than China's style of government would be superior to the US' style of government

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 186

She 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.

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1750
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 3156
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!

Why is NASA on the hook to completely fund commercial?  The money allocated so far is reasonable to me, since they are private firms
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Offline DDG40

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 171
  • Slidell LA.
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 11
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!

Was Ares V ever awarded?

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
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?)

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.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
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!

Why is NASA on the hook to completely fund commercial?  The money allocated so far is reasonable to me, since they are private firms
Why 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.


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.
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

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
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.

I think the order of magnitude difference in cost might have something to do with that.

And 2017 is far from the worst case for commercial crew. It could get significantly worse - Some forces within Congress & NASA would rather not see it come to fruition at all.

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.

Offline OpsAnalyst

Whatever brings that capability back.

Copy THAT.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
I am curious about Elon Musk’s take on the funding level. He was not very amused at his last appearance on the Hill about the schedule. Will he decide to go to it on his own flight timeline and funds?
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 60
Liberty could fly Orion fairly soon, they say.  ( Compared to some of the dates mentioned. )

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
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.





Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Hodapp

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.

Amen!  They should just give NASA a fixed yearly budget of 25B and be done with it!  No budget haggling, or uncertainies every year.  Congress would then oversee that the budget is spent well and purposefully.  The president would then be its cheer leader.



« Last Edit: 11/18/2011 10:54 pm by Hodapp »
Launches: 133, 134, 135, EFT-1  Space X Falcon Heavy Test  Scrubs: 134
Future: EM-1 & EM-2

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
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.







I've got some real wild ideas.....just need to get them processed and find someone to carry them.
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
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.


LOL!! :) I love that!
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Yea… Fell out of the lobbyists’ pockets…  ::)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
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.







Amen.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Starlab90

  • NASA Retired
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Huntsville, AL
  • Liked: 786
  • Likes Given: 314
Was Ares V ever awarded?

No. There was a plan to request proposals for some preliminary study contracts in the summer of 2009, but NASA HQ decided against that when they were told to set up the Augustine panel.

The SLS contracts going to Boeing, ATK, and PWR are extensions of Ares I contracts that they had already won.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Lightfoot said they're going to find out if anybody wants to use the SLS payload volume.

He was grilled about rocket sizes by Nelson.

"We're talking 27 and a half foot in our first version and a potential to go to 33 feet in the upscaled version of 130mt"

They will talk to their science community, international partners and commercial guys to see what other non HSF might be.

I do like the idea of EFT-1 now. An early flight test helps MPCV develop quickly. They say they got a good deal on DIV-H so I guess it's all systems go.

I didn't like that NASA wouldn't be drawn into a preferred path for international co-op in beyond LEO missions.

Everybody wants to go to Mars. I'm glad they talking about it more now.  ;D

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
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?)

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.



Actually you could do a Mars mission with SLS and existing propulsion plus fuel depots if it simply matched STS flight rates.
ISRU would be a nice thing to have though.

The Ride Report and Mars Direct use a very similar launch vehicle.

Better propulsion would help make Mars colonization easier and allow anytime access.

Personally I'd even consider forgoing the 130Mt SLS and work on getting the flight rates for the Block I SLS up to 6 to 9 a year.

Get commercial involved with supplying the fuel depots with propellant and lifting smaller sub 20MT items though Spacex might be able to lift 53Mt parts.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2011 12:41 am by Patchouli »

Offline Hodapp

Asteroid first?  Nuts!   ::)
I'm sick of spineless politicians...
Just cause the Obama-nation of the Barrackacy proclaims "been there done that"...what a stupid statement...and now all the spineless politicians can't even mention the Moon!!!!! 
Doesn't anyone have any political spine and grand vision anymore!!!
NASA needs to set missions goals and deadlines!

Imagine the re-inspiration of a new generation!
2018 - NASA goes bold again!  Manned Orion orbits the moon in december again...what a merging of the past to the present.
2012 - NASA announces a MPLV - Multi-purpose Landing Vehicle in development.
2019 - NASA goes bold again! Manned Landing on the moon.
2020's - NASA/Bigelow launch habitat modules to the moon.  To build an Antartic style moon research station.  TRDS system orbited around the moon.  Beginning of a lunar orbiting station.  L1/L2 research missions.  Fuel Depots.  Conquer Cis-Lunar space.  Space tourists, mining, and exploitation of valuble lunar materials.
2030's - NASA/Intl Mars manned mission planning and execution.

Okay done with my mood rant!   :)
« Last Edit: 11/19/2011 01:16 am by Hodapp »
Launches: 133, 134, 135, EFT-1  Space X Falcon Heavy Test  Scrubs: 134
Future: EM-1 & EM-2

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1750
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 3156
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!

Why is NASA on the hook to completely fund commercial?  The money allocated so far is reasonable to me, since they are private firms
Why 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.
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Offline OpsAnalyst

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!

Why is NASA on the hook to completely fund commercial?  The money allocated so far is reasonable to me, since they are private firms
Why 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.

You mean, really commercial?  As in, raise the money, put the investment at risk, characterize the market and hope you're right (or face loss of investment and probably bankruptcy), generate revenues, pay back the shareholders, and build the business?

You mean, as in, the government doesn't pick the winners, the market does?

Nah....

Offline OpsAnalyst

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.







Amen.

Well, get going, man!   ;)

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
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.







Amen.

Well, get going, man!   ;)

Voice in the wilderness, etc....hehe
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
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.  That
was an autumnal season, and with the cancellation of the Constellation
program, it looked for awhile like NASA might be facing a long, cold
winter, one so deep that NASA might not survive it in a form that
most spaceflight enthusiasts who remember Apollo would recognize.

But it now looks like the winter might have been a mild one after
all.  How did that happen?  It might have been due to some nearly
heroic work done over the past months by some in Congress who have
been long-time supports of NASA.  Or maybe it was pure chance, or
maybe the doom and gloom forecasts of a freezing cold winter were
overly pessimistic from the beginning.

In any case, the vernal awakening at NASA is becoming almost
palpable.  It looks like Congress and the Administration have
negotiated a true multilateral compromise for the NASA budget.
SLS and MPCV get a huge share of funding.  But there is also
some funding left over for commercial crew and science.  Nothing
in human spaceflight, except ISS, happens right away.  But there's
the strong hope of some kind of U.S. human spaceflight program
in the years ahead, either commercial LEO or NASA-captive BEO, or
maybe even both.

Do the doomsayers on this thread not see the seasons turning thus?




— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
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.







Amen.

Well, get going, man!   ;)

Though I WILL point out that the authorizing side of the Congress, since 2008, have authorized numbers that, had they been matched by Presidential requests and subsequent appropriations, would have provided roughly an additional six billion dollars to NASA's top line since 2007. It is , unfortunately, extremely difficult for appropriators to add more than requested, because their allocation--or piece of the federal pie--is largely determined by the Presidential Budget Request being generally incorporated in the Budget Resolutions, which form the basis for the appropriations allocations, within which they must juggle their numbers...and within which they can only make an increase above requested amounts by taking an offset, within their allocation, from some other part of their jurisdiction That's a "food fight" that is well-nigh impossible to win, especially in an era where the Senate side almost always has to adopt appropriations measures s by unanimous consent these days...meaning just one Senator who's favorite "ox" may have been "gored" in the rob-Peter-to-pay Paul "reality" would be able to lodge a  hold--and thus bring about the subsequent defeat--of the appropriations bill.

But the authorizers, I would claim, have actually done "their part" in trying to find those extra billions. Unfortunately, they are just a part of the budgeting process--and the one with the less "teeth" for enforcing their authorized funding levels. It really has to begin with the Presidential Budget Request. And you can see by the attached chart how those Requests have not followed the authorized amounts; and the appropriations levels have followed the same trend, as a result of that. (The one place there was "convergence" was FY 2010, for which there was no authorization level due to the delay in waiting for the Augustine report after the 2010 Request, so the chart should probably show a dotted line from 2009 to 2011 for the authorization funding "trend"). But the subsequent years' authorization returned to the previous trend line of increasing the top-line. 

So, the authorizers "got going" as you suggest, but their efforts, sadly, were not matched by the other "players" in the process.  (edited after reading a midnight post and having more wits about me regarding the 2010 "dip" in authorization.)
« Last Edit: 11/19/2011 11:17 am by 51D Mascot »
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
It goes without saying, but good luck out there! We're pulling for you and NASA. ;)
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

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Quote from: sdsds
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.

Not only is this counter-intutive, it doesn't make sense to me.  But I'm taking their schedule, which I call a fake schedule, at face value for purposes of discussion.  There's nine years between the first crewed mission of a vehicle which probably will be far greater than seventy ton capacity, and a successful F&F mission to Mars.  On some other thread just the other day, a guy proposed that the martian mission would be about 1050 tons IMLEO, which is eight launches of 140 tons in nine years.  Which can only mean that SLS-3 begins construction of the mother ship.  The senators and the administrator are pretending, in that hearing, that this is a real possibility.  It is not.

I suppose that they are handwaving into reality the estimated costs of all that additional hardware, and the generous launch rate, as one dollar.  Plus ninety eight cents, since all of those type missions at least double in cost.  Either there is some mighty fine kool-aid on the Hill, or there is intelligent life on Mars.  The former seems more likely to the casual observer.  It's not even a matter that they won't do it; they simply can't do it.  That schedule is a bald faced lie, nothing else.

Quote from: SpaceX plus SLS
You can be sure China has a more efficient decision making process than the US, all authoritarian countries do.

Certainly, when it comes to crushing their population, this is so.  To the extent that their internal power structure, being composed entirely of fallible humans with incompletely thought out and competing alliances and so forth, one cannot say with certainty anything about their decision making efficiency.  Further, that efficiency is always subject to the laws of physics, and the need, in this industry, to learn by doing.  China is doing its own thing, and their efforts do not affect ours.

Quote from: Lars
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.

Thank you.

Quote from: Francis Ford Coppola.  Whoops. Sorry.
We can't find 3B-5B more a year?

It is simply never an issue of can't, and always an issue of won't.  And Hodapp's notion of a fixed budget is spot on.  I would add, use it or save it.  Perhaps the next administrator should be a middle class stay at home mom, who knows exactly how to keep a household going on a fixed budget.  That would be the salient experience.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
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…
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 60
Quote from:  link=topic=27281.msg831067#msg831067 date=1321714906
My 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 ......
« Last Edit: 11/19/2011 02:54 pm by dks13827 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Quote from:  link=topic=27281.msg831067#msg831067 date=1321714906
My 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 ......
By underfunding commercial they are trying to slow walk it. At the same time U.S.  dollars and jobs go to Russia to fund “The Age of Soyuz”… Something Un-American about that…
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10390
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 1415
  • Likes Given: 171
U.S.  dollars and jobs go to Russia

What US jobs are now in Russia?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
U.S.  dollars and jobs go to Russia

What US jobs are now in Russia?

The US jobs that have been transferred to Russia probably include Shuttle fueling, repair and mission control.

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10390
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 1415
  • Likes Given: 171
True. Buran is making a comeback!

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
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…

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.

Regarding apparent "skepticism" or lack of trust regarding SLS, folks seem to have forgotten that it took nine months of haggling and pressing--and even eventually a formal investigation and subpoena for information regarding the internal "decision-making" on the SLS/MPCV vehicle design--before an "agreement" was finally reached, in the meeting mentioned during the hearing, regarding the vehicle design. Senator Hutchison obviously has every good reason to doubt the "authenticity" of the Administration's "commitment" to that agreement--one would have to assume based in part at least on information gathered during the investigation--and was probing to get a sense of that commitment.

After all, the Administration's FY 2012 REQUEST basically reduced SLS from the "authorized amount" for FY 2012 of $2.65 billion to $1.8 billion...an amount of $850m. MPCV/Orion was reduced in the REQUEST by about $190m below the amount authorized. Those reductions were essentially where the REQUEST moved the amounts from to fund the proposed increases above authorizations in both Space Technology and Commercial Crew. That "switch" of priorities from what was authorized clearly was seen as an indication that the Administration and the Congress were not on the same page, as can be seen if you go back and look at statements made at the time the budget request was released. That "less than enthusiastic" funding of Heavy-Lift development was still the "operative philosophy" that went into the NASA FY 2013 Budget preparation process, which began last Spring--and which also impacted the "Basis of Estimate" that NASA provided to Booz-Allen-Hamilton in June and July for their Independent Cost Assessment. That estimate reflected basically a flat-line level of direct procurement funding (not including manpower) of $1.3b/year for SLS. (If you add manpower and some ground ops, that figure would translate roughly to $1.8b/year.)

Since all that budget submission activity PRECEDED the mid-September meeting with Jack Lew, during which it was agreed that the Administration and Congress needed to work together to find the resources necessary to make the development of the vehicle succeed (but with NO discussion or agreement on specific annual funding levels or performance milestone schedules), it would seem clear that a question as to whether there had been or would yet be an effort to re-open the issue of SLS/MPCV funding for the FY 2013 budget preparation, would be a fair and reasonable question. Unfortunately, the answer she received did not appear to reflect anything other than that NASA and the Administration are still on precisely the same "path" from the standpoint of funding levels for SLS/MPCV for 2013 and the out-years as they were BEFORE they made a "commitment" to the SLS/MPCV vehicle design and development approach announced on September 14th. That would not, in my view at least, demonstrate a true good faith effort to develop the required government launch capability i a manner consistent with the law, since it completely ignores the requirement for the core elements to be available to provide a back up for crew AND cargo delivery to ISS, because it would--at best--provide back-up uncrewed capability by 2017 and crew capability in 2021--a year AFTER the current planned lifetime of ISS.

The ONLY way that could be improved with schedules moving to the left, would be funding at levels closer to those authorized. As I have said before many times, and can be seen in the FY 2012 appropriations, it is very difficult for appropriators to provide top-line funding levels above what is requested, so the focus for a "healthy" funding level--not only for SLS/MPCV, but also for Commercial Crew--is appropriately right now on the preparation of the FY 2013 Budget Submission, because that REQUEST will determine the size of the allocations within which the appropriators will have to work next year. 

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)

« Last Edit: 11/19/2011 06:06 pm by 51D Mascot »
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
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.
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

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
I can appreciate KBH sense of frustration and it seemed that it took Sen. Nelsen to finally clarify it.  I wish to see SLS move forward and the mission planned for it. I do see it as a shame though that they didn’t fund the President’s $850m proposal and it shows a lack of foresight in investing in the future for the private sector.  As always 51D, thank you for your tireless efforts.
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
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.

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.)
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2011 04:45 pm by pathfinder_01 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
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.

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.
I don't see why this has to be the case.

There's a time to cut, but it's not when the unemployment rate is as high as it is now. Cut at low unemployment because the impact is minimized. You'll be hearing about this a lot more from Republicans as the supercommittee decides whether to cut defense spending or not, and the Republicans are absolutely right that cutting defense spending will lead to higher unemployment.

The same argument holds for NASA funding, as well. And double for things like commercial crew, which hold the promise (if not the certainty) of growing without government support when the economy fully recovers (which it won't until after 2014, according to the Fed... and the more we cut, the longer it will take to recover). But even just as important is the threat to our >$100 billion dollar new orbital facility posed by relying entirely on a single manned spacecraft from Russia, which has not always been friendly to the US.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2011 04:57 pm by Robotbeat »
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

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I find it humerous that those who were so quick to want to destroy capabiliities for the promise and hope of something else are now using the "ISS argument", etc.

Tried to warn all of you we did.....welcome to the future. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10390
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 1415
  • Likes Given: 171
We have just had a decision about demanning the ISS.

That one flew past me! When is the US demanning the ISS?

Quote
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

So the Russians are using American money to hire more ground crew?

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
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.







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.

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1750
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 3156
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.







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.


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.

I agree there is probably tens of billions if not hundreds of billions that could be taken out of DoD spending each year to support other, more important programs.
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56

She 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.

Just to clarify, she did not specify NASA "science" budget should be expanded by funding taken from other science programs outside of NASA. She was referring to potentially increasing NASA's top-line funding level in general from other science-related areas of the federal budget. From the unofficial CQ transcript, the words were:

"...the President also has options not within the NASA budget, but arranging the priorities between NASA and some other scientific priorities and determining which are the most important."

I can see why there would be some concern about what other federal "scientific priorities" might end up being cut in such an approach, but she's focusing on an assessment of relative value. I know in the past the Senator has raised concerns about some aspects of National Science Foundation  funding that, in her view, were not truly justified "science" activities, so would guess that may have been what was behind that remark. Would have to verify that, but that's my sense of it.

But there's another way to look at how a review of "other science" programs might be beneficial to NASA, and that is similar to what is contemplated in the ISS National Laboratory research management through the independent entity. The idea (and the requirement of the law) in the ISS NatLab management effort is that the entity seek participation of other government entities as well as academic and private/commercial entities to support research aboard ISS. Some portions of that support could conceivably serve as an "offset" to NASA's costs, for example, of providing transportation to the ISS, or sharing the costs of ground-based infrastructure, payload processing, etc. That could free funds within NASA to allocate to other activities, such as commercial crew or other vehicle developments.

Something similar to that sort of cost offset or cost-sharing might conceivably be done by identifying where NASA and non-NASA science and research activities might SHARE objectives--and therefore some common costs, that would be beneficial to BOTH activities.

Guess I'm suggesting not to throw the notion out completely, but of course, as with anything, the "devil would be in the details."
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
51D thx for your input it is thought out very well.

I do know where Billions of Research funds that can be deverted to NASA might come from.  See my note of "crazy idea" above.

"...the President also has options not within the NASA budget, but arranging the priorities between NASA and some other scientific priorities and determining which are the most important."

This would be the problem I see as the President would never go for the idea.  I'm sure Congress would jump on it because its designed for they way they play.

Anyhow let me work it out and maybe you can review it. 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 60
What is Esclades ?

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1750
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 3156
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.


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.
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
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…

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)



Chris, I see another article on this.   Would be great to have an article to point to when users say Com Crew is cut.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
We have just had a decision about demanning the ISS.

That one flew past me! When is the US demanning the ISS?

The US will deman the ISS when the Russians give the order.

One of the advantages of having a monopoly on human transport to and from the ISS.

Quote
Quote
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

So the Russians are using American money to hire more ground crew?

The price of a ticket includes the wages of the ground crew, same as more conventional airlines.  As to whether the Russians are hiring more ground crew or working the existing ones harder you will have to ask the Russians.

Purchase of Russian crew transportation services is on page SOMD-27 of NASA's Space Operations Budget Request.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516652main_NASAFY12_Budget_Estimates-Space_Ops-508.pdf

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.


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.

Did I say the war spending was a model of efficiency?  Have you ever been to Iraq or any other combat zone?  I have and I know what I am speaking about.

That said, your comment about burning Escalades because they have a flat tire needed to be addressed for the "inaccurate" that it is.  And the link you sent me is seemingly a blog site that speaks mainly about Gulf War 1 and most certainly does not make any mention or provide any evidence of what you claim above. 
« Last Edit: 11/19/2011 11:50 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
True. Buran is making a comeback!

I thought it was MAKS-OS they were talking about bring back.

Still I can't believe these guys could not scare up an extra 800M to fully fund commercial crew and the advanced technology programs which are just as important as SLS in getting beyond LEO.

They could have told the TSA no money for scanners, or pulled the budget for small time domestic pot investigations by the DEA or spent that money for Real-ID at DHS and fully covered that short fall.
The reason why I suggested small time pot operations is many states now consider small amounts to no longer be a serious crime and it's pointless for the fed to continue their operation against it.
Actually the amount probably would be equal to the entire NASA budget and the remaining few billion could be used for college grants or similar.

Other things that can be done no more handouts for Israel they don't need them and haven't since the 90s.
« Last Edit: 11/20/2011 12:20 am by Patchouli »

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67

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.

The flip side of the myth that needs to die just as much is that having the shuttle wouldn't improve the ISS situation during a Soyuz standdown. This is false; ISS could be configured to operate in a man-tended mode (and in fact this was the nominal plan for SSF assembly), using visiting shuttle crews to perform maintenance and repair tasks. Sure, much of the biological science would be interrupted, but many experiments could continue and the odds of station survival would be greatly enhanced by the ability to fix degraded systems.
JRF

Offline Andy USA

  • Lead Moderator
  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1029
  • Los Angeles, California
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 255
Thread trimmed due to stupidity and incitement. Several posters are treading on very thin water.

Locking.

Tags:
 

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