NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => Space Policy Discussion => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 01:10 AM

Title: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 01:10 AM
ARTICLE:
Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/lawmakers-bill-extend-shuttle-2015-hlv/

This article is based on *some* of the key points in the Bill, noting there's a lot of content to cover. You can download the Bill (Final working draft) pdf via here:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=1cacb498-64bb-4fa3-a42e-d861e87700d5
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: butters on 03/04/2010 01:24 AM
Seems like all launch vehicles win and all payloads lose.  We'll have plenty of ways to send nothing to nowhere.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Harold KSC on 03/04/2010 01:26 AM
Going to read the pdf next, but read the article, fine work with that again. I know you love shuttle, but you avoided writing only about shuttle.

"The Bill aims at answering the critics who claim the commercial sector are unproven when it comes to human space flight, with the language aiming to steer commercial companies into successfully demonstrating their ability of providing logistical support to the ISS, prior to being handed over the keys to launching humans."

That's a wonderful line.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 01:28 AM
Good article but in respect of Shuttle costs (and at the risk of nit picking), I doubt that the $1.2B in FY 2010 and $2B in FY2012 are the entire Shuttle extension costs, they are just the additionnal costs above the NASA regular $19B budget that is necessary for extension.

Quote
On the topic of costs, the funding for an extension, the first two years are costed at an extra $1.2B in 2011, followed by an extra $2B in 2012. These figures are much less than previously touted, and may have a good selling point for the huge jobs – and more so skill set – savings a shuttle extension would provide.

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 01:32 AM
Possibily, YG - although a two flight per year (with one or two orbiters) would be far less than the current STS cost. There's lots of subtractions to make from current cost, to extension cost. $2b might not be far off - and possibly doable.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/04/2010 01:34 AM
Good article but in respect of Shuttle costs (at the risk of nit picking), I doubt that the $1.2B and $2B are the entire Shuttle extension costs, they are just the additionnal costs above the NASA regular $19B budget that are needed for extension.
Yes -- if you look at the SOMD number authorized, it is exactly the same as that in the Administration request for FY 2011.  Shuttle already had $600 million for ops plus another ~$350 million that had been labeled for retirement decommissioning.  So basically this would authorize ~$2 billion for Shuttle operations in FY 2011 and FY 2012.

The bill also authorizes an additional $200 million for Shuttle in FY 2010 -- not sure how that would get appropriated.

Additionally, the bill authorizes an additional $100 million in FY 2011 and FY 2012 for ISS Operations.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/04/2010 01:37 AM
A thing of beauty Chris. Great job!

So we have shuttle extension, up to 2/year as required until commercial has proven itself. As such, government is the primary for crew & cargo. after commercial has proven itself with a flight regime, they become the primary. But before commercial crew can be purchased, the administrator MUST have permission to fund it by congress.

R&D funding, especially for propulsion.

A focus on SDHLV that will be reviewed with the others, with a design before 6 months after the Act. There seems to be wording enough to limit elements of CxP into the mix only if they are cost effective.

ISS is right in there, along with getting the spares dilema all sorted out. Also, an examination of all the modules to ensure full utilization to at least 2020. They also announce that a Comptroller General will oversee the independent assessment of ISS. Furthermore, a new position of Deputy Associate administrator under SOMD to oversee ISS ops, maintenance, and utilization reporting to Congress. There will also be a National Lab management entity, and they must have tax free status. Perhaps someone here can indicate potential candidates.

What got me is on p.30 (lines 6-17): LIMIT government crew vehicles for BEO missions (hence commercial gets the nod).
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/04/2010 01:46 AM
Has an Authorization Bill been proposed consistent with the budget presented by NASA on 1 February 2010?

Am I correct in my belief that such a Bill must be presented by a member of Congress?

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/04/2010 01:47 AM
Space Politics take on the bill:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/03/03/hutchisons-bid-to-preserve-us-access-to-the-iss/

(Also has a note/link about some background from prior to the Administration's announcement, which was also noted in The Space Review (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1547/1) at that time.)

Orlando Sentinel blog post:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/03/shuttle-flights-would-continue-under-new-proposal.html
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/04/2010 01:50 AM
Has an Authorization Bill been proposed consistent with the budget presented by NASA on 1 February 2010?

Am I correct in my belief that such a Bill must be presented by a member of Congress?
No and yes, sort of.  As has been noted, Congress could pass this authorization bill and then turn around and pass an appropriations bill with the Administration's top line numbers.

It's a lot like what Ross was writing in another thread -- we now have two policy proposals (Administration request, this bill) that are far apart and there's probably going to be some compromise.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: David AF on 03/04/2010 01:55 AM
Excellent article.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/04/2010 01:58 AM
Good article but in respect of Shuttle costs (and at the risk of nit picking), I doubt that the $1.2B in FY 2010 and $2B in FY2012 are the entire Shuttle extension costs, they are just the additionnal costs above the NASA regular $19B budget that is necessary for extension.

Quote
On the topic of costs, the funding for an extension, the first two years are costed at an extra $1.2B in 2011, followed by an extra $2B in 2012. These figures are much less than previously touted, and may have a good selling point for the huge jobs – and more so skill set – savings a shuttle extension would provide.



Not true, yg...the $19B includes only $700m and change for shuttle operations for the first quarter of FY 2011, which is a hedge against extending into that period in order to complete the remaining manifest. No other funding within the proposed $19 billion for FY 2011 has anything to do with shuttle operations. FY 2012 on, under the President's plan, has zero funding for shuttle ops. The $2b authorization--for money over and above what is in the President's request--is the figure for total SSP operations at a flight rate maximum of two per year, and that figure has supporting documentation in reports, both internal and in those provided to the Congress, which provide a good confidence level that the number is sufficient to do the job, if such extended operations are found to be required as a result if the ISS supportability assessment required by the bill as one of the key factors in determining what level, if any, of extended operations would be essential to ensure long-term (2020 and beyond) viability of ISS. That does not mean that SSP would need to be co-extended with ISS; only that, where it's unique capability is required in the near-term to provide delivery for large ORU/SRU elements for prepositioning aboard ISS before SSP capability is "surrendered."
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mr_magoo on 03/04/2010 02:06 AM
A bill to make the Augustine Commission cringe. Build everything to make everyone feel good about themselves.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: neilh on 03/04/2010 02:07 AM
Excellent article, although I'm rather concerned by this part of the bill:

Quote
While commercial transportation systems may contribute valuable services, it is in the United States’ national interest to maintain a government operated space transportation system for crew and cargo delivery to low-Earth orbit and beyond.
...
“The Administrator is directed to develop a plan, no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for the establishment of a National Space Transportation System.

“The National Space Transportation System shall include (1) an architecture of government developed and operated space transportation systems, including one or more launch vehicles and associated crew and cargo carriers....
“(4) continuation or modification of ongoing programs, associated contracts, and testing and evaluation plans initiated under the Constellation Program, including the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Ares-1 Crew Launch Vehicle, to the extent that such elements are determined to be cost effective and operationally effective.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 02:15 AM
Thanks for the kind words to the people above :)

Yeah, the Ares I reference also made me wonder, but I'm not sure it means "go back and continue with Ares I" - they can't based on budget alone anyway, and the Augustine findings would still stand.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/04/2010 02:20 AM
Thanks for the kind words to the people above :)

Yeah, the Ares I reference also made me wonder, but I'm not sure it means "go back and continue with Ares I" - they can't based on budget alone anyway, and the Augustine findings would still stand.

It's the last part that's important to take into context: "...to the extent that such elements are determined to be cost effective and operationally effective."

Ares I loses out, period. The 5-segment SRB on the other hand...it may survive to fight another day, expecially with comments to review and make the most use of shuttle-derived components and infrastructure.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Tim S on 03/04/2010 02:40 AM
I like the timescale for HLV. The Bolden plan for HLV is a disgrace.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 02:42 AM
Good article but in respect of Shuttle costs (and at the risk of nit picking), I doubt that the $1.2B in FY 2010 and $2B in FY2012 are the entire Shuttle extension costs, they are just the additionnal costs above the NASA regular $19B budget that is necessary for extension.

Quote
On the topic of costs, the funding for an extension, the first two years are costed at an extra $1.2B in 2011, followed by an extra $2B in 2012. These figures are much less than previously touted, and may have a good selling point for the huge jobs – and more so skill set – savings a shuttle extension would provide.



Not true, yg...the $19B includes only $700m and change for shuttle operations for the first quarter of FY 2011, which is a hedge against extending into that period in order to complete the remaining manifest. No other funding within the proposed $19 billion for FY 2011 has anything to do with shuttle operations. FY 2012 on, under the President's plan, has zero funding for shuttle ops. The $2b authorization--for money over and above what is in the President's request--is the figure for total SSP operations at a flight rate maximum of two per year, and that figure has supporting documentation in reports, both internal and in those provided to the Congress, which provide a good confidence level that the number is sufficient to do the job, if such extended operations are found to be required as a result if the ISS supportability assessment required by the bill as one of the key factors in determining what level, if any, of extended operations would be essential to ensure long-term (2020 and beyond) viability of ISS. That does not mean that SSP would need to be co-extended with ISS; only that, where it's unique capability is required in the near-term to provide delivery for large ORU/SRU elements for prepositioning aboard ISS before SSP capability is "surrendered."

OK, thanks for carifying that. So the cost per year for Shuttle extension really is essentially 2B$ per year.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: TexasRED on 03/04/2010 02:42 AM
Excellent article.  NSF continues to beat the rest by providing informative articles that contain no injected opinionated nonsense.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 02:47 AM
Thanks for the kind words to the people above :)

Yeah, the Ares I reference also made me wonder, but I'm not sure it means "go back and continue with Ares I" - they can't based on budget alone anyway, and the Augustine findings would still stand.

That's how I read it too. Congress doesn't want NASA to pay for unecessary cancellation fees if the technology from Constellation can be re-used for the HLV.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: jml on 03/04/2010 02:52 AM
Thanks for the kind words to the people above :)

Yeah, the Ares I reference also made me wonder, but I'm not sure it means "go back and continue with Ares I" - they can't based on budget alone anyway, and the Augustine findings would still stand.

That's how I read it too. Congress doesn't want NASA for unecessary cancellation fee if the technology can be used for the HLV.

Yep, this language could be interpreted to suggest ideas like modifying the Ares I IU contract into a HLV IU contract, and the other Ares I contracts into other HLV contracts so as to avoid or at least minimize the billions in termination costs. But the language is still just vague enough that it might mean test-flying the stick several times from 39B as "Rocket-X".
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 03:00 AM
51D Mascot,

I would be interested to know if you believe that the Shuttle extension money has any chance of being appropriated.

I wonder if this bill has bi-partisan support and if Obama might be tempted to veto it. Was there any imput from the White House on this bill?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/04/2010 03:01 AM
For those who do not follow Congressional legislation closely, one important metric for this proposed bill will be the number of co-sponsors who add their name to the bill.

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: neilh on 03/04/2010 03:03 AM
Thanks for the kind words to the people above :)

Yeah, the Ares I reference also made me wonder, but I'm not sure it means "go back and continue with Ares I" - they can't based on budget alone anyway, and the Augustine findings would still stand.

That's how I read it too. Congress doesn't want NASA to pay for unecessary cancellation fees if the technology from Constellation can be re-used for the HLV.

I imagine it also allows congressmen who've already staked on Ares I to support the bill, as they can still say that they're sort-of supporting Ares.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/04/2010 03:08 AM
Thanks for the kind words to the people above :)

Yeah, the Ares I reference also made me wonder, but I'm not sure it means "go back and continue with Ares I" - they can't based on budget alone anyway, and the Augustine findings would still stand.

The Ares 1 references are, first, "suggestive" as options to be reviewed as part of HLV development. The notion is that an evolvable shuttle-derived HLV could begin with a core that might be an in-line configuration of 4-segment SSRBs, coupled to an ET-sized core segment (strengthened and with a boat-tail at the bottom holding SSMEs, and a payload attachment/inter-stage carrying an accelerated Orion with LAS attached) which would become the "government-operated" LEO/ISS support capability, with a target IOC of 2013; the core would then evolve using five-segment SSRB, powered upper stage with capability for cargo and crew for providing exo-LEO capability by 2018. Sounds familiar? All that could be accomplished without necessarily engaging in a two-year new procurement process by using existing contracts, novated to redirect work to those configurations. That would mean Ares 1 serves to provide additional testing of 5-segment performance characteristics, as well as potentially serving to test LAS capabilities, etc., but not to serve as a full system for crew delivery to LEO/ISS, as has been the focus under Constellation; the initial evolvable HLV core could serve in that role, and then grow/evolve to the full HLV capability for support of exo-LEO missions. At least those are the underlying assumptions that are proposed for refinement and evaluation as an option. That scenario is also founded on very strong indications that such an approach is not only a matter of informal industry-level conversations, but also a matter of internal discussions within NASA. In essence, the language in the bill helps provide "top-cover" for pursuing those kinds of discussions to determine the degree of feasibility and potential for successful development.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/04/2010 03:13 AM
In other words, spend the budgeted Constellation "close out" money on building something like a Jupiter 130 rather than paying termination fees?

Is that reasonably close?

Edit to add: The use of the word "novation" also speaks volumes.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/04/2010 03:14 AM
51D Mascot,

I would be interested to know if you believe that the Shuttle extension money has any chance of being appropriated.

I wonder if this bill has bi-partisan support and if Obama might be tempted to veto it. Was there any imput from the White House on this bill?

Absolutely a possibility of getting the funds, if the NEED is adequately and convincingly demonstrated as being a requirement for the protection of a $100 billion dollar investment in ISS and the need to ensure its sustainability through at least 2020.

There IS bipartisan support, though not completely visible at this stage, except in the group lining up to introduce identical companion legislation in the House. No White House involvement was either sought or offered in developing this bill, as it is seen as an alternative to the White House proposal; in fact, the introduction of the bill itself is seen as providing a potential avenue for establishing the framework for subsequent conversations with the White House at whatever point they deem it is necessary to start talking about a realistic approach to a very clearly unpopular budget proposal.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/04/2010 03:17 AM
For those who do not follow Congressional legislation closely, one important metric for this proposed bill will be the number of co-sponsors who add their name to the bill.



That is often "a" metric, but should never be construed as a necessarily "telling" metric. Especially when you recognize the kind of process that such a bill goes through after introduction, with referral to and consideration by a Committee of Jurisdiction, a mark-up to refine it to a consensus point prior to reporting to the floor by the Committee. THEN is when the nuts and bolts of coalitions, blocs of support, and vote-counting get relevant.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/04/2010 03:27 AM
Good article but in respect of Shuttle costs (and at the risk of nit picking), I doubt that the $1.2B in FY 2010 and $2B in FY2012 are the entire Shuttle extension costs, they are just the additionnal costs above the NASA regular $19B budget that is necessary for extension.

Quote
On the topic of costs, the funding for an extension, the first two years are costed at an extra $1.2B in 2011, followed by an extra $2B in 2012. These figures are much less than previously touted, and may have a good selling point for the huge jobs – and more so skill set – savings a shuttle extension would provide.



Not true, yg...the $19B includes only $700m and change for shuttle operations for the first quarter of FY 2011, which is a hedge against extending into that period in order to complete the remaining manifest. No other funding within the proposed $19 billion for FY 2011 has anything to do with shuttle operations. FY 2012 on, under the President's plan, has zero funding for shuttle ops. The $2b authorization--for money over and above what is in the President's request--is the figure for total SSP operations at a flight rate maximum of two per year, and that figure has supporting documentation in reports, both internal and in those provided to the Congress, which provide a good confidence level that the number is sufficient to do the job, if such extended operations are found to be required as a result if the ISS supportability assessment required by the bill as one of the key factors in determining what level, if any, of extended operations would be essential to ensure long-term (2020 and beyond) viability of ISS. That does not mean that SSP would need to be co-extended with ISS; only that, where it's unique capability is required in the near-term to provide delivery for large ORU/SRU elements for prepositioning aboard ISS before SSP capability is "surrendered."

OK, thanks for carifying that. So the cost per year for Shuttle extension really is essentially 2B$ per year.

Correct; that is the "informed" estimate that has underlying justification sufficient for it to be considered reasonable, especially when coupled with a two-flight-per-year flight rate, which is likely the maximum number that could be safely flown at that reduced program funding level and associated reductions of flight support requirements and resources.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 03:34 AM
51D Mascot,

I would be interested to know if you believe that the Shuttle extension money has any chance of being appropriated.

I wonder if this bill has bi-partisan support and if Obama might be tempted to veto it. Was there any imput from the White House on this bill?

Absolutely a possibility of getting the funds, if the NEED is adequately and convincingly demonstrated as being a requirement for the protection of a $100 billion dollar investment in ISS and the need to ensure its sustainability through at least 2020.

There IS bipartisan support, though not completely visible at this stage, except in the group lining up to introduce identical companion legislation in the House. No White House involvement was either sought or offered in developing this bill, as it is seen as an alternative to the White House proposal; in fact, the introduction of the bill itself is seen as providing a potential avenue for establishing the framework for subsequent conversations with the White House at whatever point they deem it is necessary to start talking about a realistic approach to a very clearly unpopular budget proposal.

The irony of this bill is that it includes things that everybody expected to be part of the FY 2011 Budget (especially after the results of the HLV study): an SD-HLV for 2018 (J-2xx) and funding for commercial crew for LEO with a NASA SD rocket as a backup for late 2013 (J-1xx).
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/04/2010 03:40 AM
In other words, spend the budgeted Constellation "close out" money on building something like a Jupiter 130 rather than paying termination fees?

Is that reasonably close?

Edit to add: The use of the word "novation" also speaks volumes.

I'd say that's reasonably close.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: vt_hokie on 03/04/2010 03:46 AM
Now this is the plan that I expected from the Obama administration, before we were blindsided with the radical, and imo rushed, shift that's called for in their actual budget proposal.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: phantomdj on 03/04/2010 03:55 AM
For those who do not follow Congressional legislation closely, one important metric for this proposed bill will be the number of co-sponsors who add their name to the bill.



I agree.  For this bill to have legs it will need the support of some other influential Senators like Barbara Mikulski, Bill Nelson and Richard Shelby.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kkattula on 03/04/2010 04:06 AM
Is it at all possible that the Administration proposal was designed to be so radical as to drive POR support to the middle ground? 

i.e. SD-HLV, moderate shuttle extension, commercial crew, cancel Ares I and increased science and R&D funding. Plus get Congress to fork up a little extra to cover the Shuttle extension.

I can well imagine that if this new bill had been offered by the Whitehouse, Shelby et al would have fought hard to keep some elements of the POR. Now, they would most likely be happy with this compromise, and could show how much they'd saved.

Maybe they all know this and are just playing the game.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: AndrewSTS on 03/04/2010 04:10 AM
Well I love it. For the additional cost, which isn't much in the big picture, it's a lifesaver. I'd want to know who ISN'T sponsoring this!

Letter writing campaign?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: SpaceUSMC on 03/04/2010 04:23 AM
Holy smokes, you wont hear this often from me, but somebody in congress wrote a bill I like! all my enthusiasim aside and it was said before, this is what I expected to become of the program, I will be writing my reps to voice support for this, not that they listen due to other issues out there but this is an important one for our country and I suggest others do the same.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/04/2010 04:45 AM
Wahey, what do you know, just like the folks predicted, here's a compromise bill that's better than either.

What's not to like about this bill?
*SD-HLV, aka Jupiter-130
*Shuttle extension and no gap - right on!
*Orion by 2013-15 - awesome, maybe we'll see Orion and shuttle docked at the ISS simultaneously - Orion and shuttle both benefit from LON capability
*Takes pressure off the commercial providers - something I was worried could result in a bad accident
*ISS to 2020 like we wanted
*All the other R&D & science stuff too

Now, something's obviously going to be compromised... not sure what that is at this stage. Might actually see cost savings worked out instead, such as commercial shuttle ops...

As for the actual goal, I think the discovery of lunar water - and hydrocarbons! - will make the moon look a lot more promising. Hopefully we'll get a manned landing at least.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/04/2010 04:46 AM
For those who do not follow Congressional legislation closely, one important metric for this proposed bill will be the number of co-sponsors who add their name to the bill.



That is often "a" metric, but should never be construed as a necessarily "telling" metric. Especially when you recognize the kind of process that such a bill goes through after introduction, with referral to and consideration by a Committee of Jurisdiction, a mark-up to refine it to a consensus point prior to reporting to the floor by the Committee. THEN is when the nuts and bolts of coalitions, blocs of support, and vote-counting get relevant.

Your description of the legislative process is not inaccurate, but you forget that amassing co-sponsors is one of the ways that bills make it through that process.

BTW, I am surprised that no one has pointed out that appropriations cannot start in the Senate.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Davinator on 03/04/2010 05:03 AM
Thanks for the article Chris. Really interesting. Such a mistake to give up on the shuttle now.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/04/2010 05:09 AM
For those who do not follow Congressional legislation closely, one important metric for this proposed bill will be the number of co-sponsors who add their name to the bill.



That is often "a" metric, but should never be construed as a necessarily "telling" metric. Especially when you recognize the kind of process that such a bill goes through after introduction, with referral to and consideration by a Committee of Jurisdiction, a mark-up to refine it to a consensus point prior to reporting to the floor by the Committee. THEN is when the nuts and bolts of coalitions, blocs of support, and vote-counting get relevant.

Your description of the legislative process is not inaccurate, but you forget that amassing co-sponsors is one of the ways that bills make it through that process.

BTW, I am surprised that no one has pointed out that appropriations cannot start in the Senate.


Absolutely right, but the point here is timing. At this stage you have "camps" at the extreme edges of "PoR" or bust and "Bold New Idea" with many of the influential folks and key players taking those positions--now. But when it becomes clear, as I believe it will, that neither of those are going to be sustainable, then a mddle ground will be sought. But it has to be articulated as an option, and THAT is the true purpose of this bill. Thus, an attempt to line up all those players prior to introduction would have been counterproductive. The hope is that having a reasonably cohesive, credible alternative "on the table" can provide an eventual rallying point for a path forward, or at the very least a focal point for the serious discussion of what that path should entail.

Not sure about the relevance of the comment about approps, because this is an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill. Also, in reality, the Senate is free to mark up an appropriations bill at any point, without awaiting a House bill; in the end, the House bill becomes the "vehicle", but its actual content is the result of conference action equally participated by both chambers.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Carl G on 03/04/2010 05:16 AM
Common sense approach, no question about it!
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bubbinski on 03/04/2010 05:21 AM
Thanks Chris for the article.  I hope the bill passes and gets enacted. 

Now...it is said that 2 orbiters would be flying with a 3rd as a retired parts donor.  Is there a backup plan to get that "donor" orbiter back up to flight status if needed, and is there a contingency plan for adding more flights per year than the two scheduled if they find an additional need? 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Halidon on 03/04/2010 05:22 AM
For those who do not follow Congressional legislation closely, one important metric for this proposed bill will be the number of co-sponsors who add their name to the bill.


Also, Sen. Hutchison would need a committee chair on her side before this bill could go anywhere.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mlorrey on 03/04/2010 06:19 AM
I realize all the pro-big-government and pro-big-standing-army special interests here are all happy with this bill.

I see a benefit in extending the shuttle a few years (esp given Russian statements implying future price gouging on Soyuz seats), but am greatly concerned that this is going to lead to a perpetual "must save the standing army" welfare/jobs program attitude. As I've said before, congress' interest in space is about jobs, jobs, jobs and pork to their districts on overpriced cost-plus contracts.

Back in the 90's when the defense industry was drastically contracting post-cold-war, all those technical people went out of big D contractors and founded many many startups that created our internet industry today and boosted national productivity greatly. Obama's plan would have done the same for the space industry (and I'm not one you'll see complimenting anything that president does), moved thousands of highly skilled people out of expensive jobs in expensive, low productivity programs, and put them to more efficient employment creating many new space businesses, taking advantage of tons of NASA spinoff technologies to make the private space biz something so phenomenal that nobody today can really appreciate the potential.

I agree with some that its likely that Obama pitched his plan primarily to force congress to pitch a fit and finally pull their thumbs out and commit to a REAL NASA budget. This sort of reverse psychology is just the sort of thing to motivate politicians to stop shucking and jiving and playing it safe.

I am also glad to see the HLV focus being on an SD HLV scheme, though IMHO the side mount solution is the easiest and cheapest to implement for the most gain per dollar. There's no reentry need for such a vehicle so the risk issues wrt foam/ice are nonexistent. I hope Ares remains well dead and we don't see anymore Estes-1X (I mean Ares-1X) model rocket fakery.

That all said, I personally do not expect this plan to last beyond 2012. We'll see  a new administration come into power who will totally redesign everything once again, wasting billions of dollars AGAIN, which is the true big tragedy and main reason why NASA needs to be out of the launcher business entirely. Space is far too important today to our future economy to leave in the hands of political tugs of war. This alone IMHO argues for privatization more than anything. Make the capital available and let private business compete to reach and fulfill various challenges that do not change from administration to administration.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 07:35 AM
A bill written by politicians for politicians, vague, without an actual plan and without considering the consequences of it.

Can this plan be executed? Sure it can. Will this mean we are going to actually do something outside of LEO by 2018? Of course not. This plan should be dubbed "the politician's plan of boldly going to LEO until re-re-re-re-re-re-re-reelection saving jobs at big contractors". Is saving jobs a bad thing? Of course not, but I doubt it justifies keeping NASA in LEO forever, which this plan clearly does.

Let's not kid ourselves, no later than 2013 for US access to orbit is not going to fly. Also, an HLV may be ready by 2018, but with Shuttle Extension AND an HLV development program everything else gets cancelled out to 0.

Below is this "compromise budget". It doesn't touch any Science line-items, because that would be bad press, it doesn't touch aeronautics, education, cross-agency support etc. either. The ISS line-item gets a boost just as planned. What happens if this plan (Shutte to 2015; Orion is kept; Ares I transitioned to HLV line-item; HLV developed) is going forward? Well, exactly, we are were we were in the last 5 years. Boldly going to LEO, all technology line-items, the commercial crew line-item, the robotic precursor line-item, all need to be zeroed out. A lunar lander? Not in there. Any lunar surface technology development? No money.

Does that inspire kids and move NASA forward? Of course not, but it's a nice budget in an election year, as it basically changes nothing at all.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Lars_J on 03/04/2010 07:49 AM
The Ares I references are worrying... And I get the impression that getting adding up all the budgeted pieces will just end up totaling too much. Too much of 'having your cake and eating it too'.

Something will have to give - But that is how politics and negotiations work.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 07:51 AM
Something will have to give - But that is how politics and negotiations work.

It's rather clear what will have to give. All technology line-items, robotic exploration, commercial crew and probably also Science. The same line-items which were zeroed out in the last 5 years.

EDIT: Looks strongly like Option 2 of the Augustine Commission (ISS extension; going nowhere thereafter) to me.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: neilh on 03/04/2010 07:59 AM
Absolutely right, but the point here is timing. At this stage you have "camps" at the extreme edges of "PoR" or bust and "Bold New Idea" with many of the influential folks and key players taking those positions--now. But when it becomes clear, as I believe it will, that neither of those are going to be sustainable, then a mddle ground will be sought. But it has to be articulated as an option, and THAT is the true purpose of this bill.

I consider myself fairly squarely within the "Bold New Idea" camp you describe, although I personally consider the new bill to be at least somewhat better than the PoR. I'm not sure a government-derived transportation system (i.e. DIRECT, most likely) is an optimal way to spend NASA's funds, but at least it isn't as bad as Ares I.

I'm skeptical that the bill will be able to get as much of a funding boost as it needs to fund all that it calls for though, and so I'm worried about what happens then. IMHO, the most important parts of NASA's plans are technology development (esp. propellant depots and ISRU) and commercial crew, but as these are also the areas without strong congressmen vested in them, I'm worried that these will take the hit when it comes to the budget crunch. That would be very bad, and in the worst case gets us back to an approximation of the ditch we're in with the PoR.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 08:08 AM
Looking at the end of the preliminary bill, what I really want to know is how they want to fit ISS operations, Shuttle operations AND SFS into 4.29bn (Space Operations) by FY2012 from 6.18bn in FY2010 and 4.89bn in FY2011. Well, maybe they are "utilising" the ISS fully by de-orbiting it... there is no other way to squeeze a 2bn STS program and 1bn SFS as well as a 3bn+ ISS program into 4.29bn...
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/04/2010 08:27 AM
There does not appear to be any authorisation of rules covering the man rating of non-NASA spacestations, orbital transfer vehicles, planetary landers, rovers, spacesuits and planetary bases/villages.

On Earth places and machines that perform propellant storage and transfer tend to be heavily regulated, so propellant depots may need a regulating or standards body - even if we do not know the rules yet.

Edit: added spacesuits
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: butters on 03/04/2010 09:57 AM
I don't get it.  What is lost in this bill? 

We have ISS extension, Shuttle extension, additional hardware to ISS, one or more government-developed SDLVs, Orion, and commercial cargo followed by commercial crew.

The bill seems to give the nod to nearly every launch vehicle "camp" and a very strong commitment to ISS, but what about exploration?  Are we bailing out all these launch vehicles at the expense of a BEO architecture?

What's being cut to pay for all this stuff?

PS: It's weird to read Republican Senators insisting on a government-developed solution awaiting evidence that the private sector can do the job...
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 10:03 AM
What's being cut to pay for all this stuff?

The bill is unrealistic, it also doesn't provide any details.

It mentions commercial crew, but there is no money for that + Orion + HLV + Shuttle extension.

It mentions technology programs would continue, but doesn't allocate any money to it.

It mentions Shuttle extension and ISS full utilization but reduces the Space Operations budget by 2bn until FY2012.

This is just a politician's bill. It has nothing to do with reality. If they were sincere, they would say that they are going to cut Science, all Technology Items, cut the proposed commercial crew to LEO program and aeronautics, because no, they ain't going to pony up 5bn more per year.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/04/2010 10:27 AM
I don't get it.  What is lost in this bill? 

Congress does seem to lack confidence in the commercial providers, especially NewSpace, to provide any capability right now.  This bill is a reaction to this lack of confidence and an attempt to address the issue of the US-indigenous crew launch gap.  In terms of what it is getting NASA doing now, it is indeed pretty much exclusively an ISS maintenance and upkeep direction with only the first foundation layers being laid for post-ISS.

What is lost appears mostly the technology R&D in favour of using derivations of existing technology.  That is, IMHO, one of the few things that CxP originally got right.

PS: It's weird to read Republican Senators insisting on a government-developed solution awaiting evidence that the private sector can do the job...

FWIW, that is a philosophically conservative position.  Don't throw away something that you know basically works until you have reason to be confident that the alleged replacement works and works well enough to be worth the trouble and expense of the switch-over.  The events of last year may have taught even right-wingers the dangers of trusting the power of the Market too much.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Zachstar on 03/04/2010 10:32 AM
Zero Chance of passing unless suddenly the pubs do a 180 and try to please dems somehow. Which I doubt....
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Robson68 on 03/04/2010 10:44 AM
"practicable NASA shall operate the Space Shuttle pro- 1
gram at a flight rate of no more than 2 missions in any 2
consecutive 12-month period beginning during the fiscal 3
years for which appropriations are authorized under sec- 4
tion 9 of this Act. 5" (Staff Working Draft)

So...

Shuttle to 2015, but only allowed 2 flights per year?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/04/2010 11:07 AM
Looking at the end of the preliminary bill, what I really want to know is how they want to fit ISS operations, Shuttle operations AND SFS into 4.29bn (Space Operations) by FY2012 from 6.18bn in FY2010 and 4.89bn in FY2011. Well, maybe they are "utilising" the ISS fully by de-orbiting it... there is no other way to squeeze a 2bn STS program and 1bn SFS as well as a 3bn+ ISS program into 4.29bn...
The bill authorizes money above and beyond the SOMD top line, mostly for Shuttle operations, but also for ISS ops -- Section 9(d) and 9(e) (and also 9(f)).  If you look at the SOMD top line number in 9(b)3, it's the same as the Administration's proposal.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mlorrey on 03/04/2010 11:18 AM

PS: It's weird to read Republican Senators insisting on a government-developed solution awaiting evidence that the private sector can do the job...

Quite so. This should properly be read to mean that they're not sure whether private space venture investors/executives/employees will become useful campaign contributors and are ensuring that their existing contributors in oldspace still have their jobs and remember them at election time...
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: William Barton on 03/04/2010 11:30 AM
Right now, this bill is all things to all people, and as such meaningless.* It could come to anything from $3bln added budget + Shuttle extension + CCDEV + HLLV to Shuttle extension + Ares I and no extra money. In other words, anything from "Halleluiah!" to "It's the end of the world as we know it!" I'll still eat my metaphorical hat if anything comes of this, but it could wind up being a very small hat indeed.

* Just as a footnote, I believe Hutchinson was running for governor of Texas so as to position herself for a 2012 GOP Presidential bid (and thereby claim 1. more governance experience than Obama [zero], 2. not run as a "Washington insider"). Plan A no longer viable, of course. But I think this bill was supposed to be part of that plan, as it was already in the pipeline before she lost the primary.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jim on 03/04/2010 11:31 AM
There does not appear to be any authorisation of rules covering the man rating of non-NASA spacestations, orbital transfer vehicles, planetary landers, rovers, spacesuits and planetary bases/villages.


Why should there be?

Because again, this is the real world and not Swallow's fantasy world. 
A. most of those items are not within the visible horizon. 
B.  Also why do they need regulation?
C.  If they do need regulation, not enough is known to develop the rules.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: William Barton on 03/04/2010 11:37 AM
There does not appear to be any authorisation of rules covering the man rating of non-NASA spacestations, orbital transfer vehicles, planetary landers, rovers, spacesuits and planetary bases/villages.


Why should there be?

Because again, this is the real world and not Swallow's fantasy world. 
A. most of those items are not within the visible horizon. 
B.  Also why do they need regulation?
C.  If they do need regulation, not enough is known to develop the rules.

One comment about the thing that is on the horizon (non-NASA space stations), I think regulation will probably depend on something like "flagging." And ITAR.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: butters on 03/04/2010 11:59 AM

PS: It's weird to read Republican Senators insisting on a government-developed solution awaiting evidence that the private sector can do the job...

Quite so. This should properly be read to mean that they're not sure whether private space venture investors/executives/employees will become useful campaign contributors and are ensuring that their existing contributors in oldspace still have their jobs and remember them at election time...

If the Democrats came out in favor of laissez faire macro-economic policy and an end to all non-defense entitlement programs, the Republicans would hoist the hammer & sickle.

Nah, they'd just raise the specter of "weak on defense".  That's what all this "Chinese and Russians beating us back to the moon" stuff is about anyway.  It's about cultivating fear based on the premise that human spaceflight superiority is an instrument of national security. 

Forget about the ISS and how space can be a place where nations come together in cooperation.  It's back to the Cold War and beating the commies.  We must show these backwards societies that the American way of life (or at least our mythology of free markets => free people) is inherently superior. 

And there's no better way to send that message than by way of a centrally-planned and publicly-financed industrial policy.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jim on 03/04/2010 12:01 PM
[quote author=Jim link=topic=20720.msg555697#msg555697

Because again, this is the real world and not Swallow's fantasy world. 
A. most of those items are not within the visible horizon. 
B.  Also why do they need regulation?
C.  If they do need regulation, not enough is known to develop the rules.

One comment about the thing that is on the horizon (non-NASA space stations), I think regulation will probably depend on something like "flagging." And ITAR.

[/quote]

Hence the use of the words "most of those"
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: phantomdj on 03/04/2010 12:02 PM
For those who do not follow Congressional legislation closely, one important metric for this proposed bill will be the number of co-sponsors who add their name to the bill.


Also, Sen. Hutchison would need a committee chair on her side before this bill could go anywhere.

Here is a list of the influential members of Congress that would add gravitas to this bill

House Committee on Budget
John Spratt (D-SC) [Chairman]
Paul Ryan (R-WI) [Ranking Member]

House Committee on Science and Technology
Bart Gordon (D-TN) [Chair]
Ralph Hall (R-TX) [Ranking Member]

House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) [Chair]
Pete Olson (R-TX) [Ranking Member]

Senate Committee on the Budget
Kent Conrad (D-ND) [Chairman]
Judd Gregg (R-NH) [Ranking Member]

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) [Chairman]
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) [Ranking Member]

Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space
Bill Nelson (D-FL) [Chair]
David Vitter (R-LA) [Ranking Member]
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: butters on 03/04/2010 12:09 PM

PS: It's weird to read Republican Senators insisting on a government-developed solution awaiting evidence that the private sector can do the job...

Quite so. This should properly be read to mean that they're not sure whether private space venture investors/executives/employees will become useful campaign contributors and are ensuring that their existing contributors in oldspace still have their jobs and remember them at election time...

If the Democrats came out in favor of laissez faire macro-economic policy and an end to all non-defense entitlement programs, the Republicans would hoist the hammer & sickle.

Can we keep this on topic and not political?

The topic is politics.  I realize that the oft-contradictory political ideology that seems to prevail on this board isn't something we like to talk about, but that doesn't make it any less germane to the issue of space politics.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/04/2010 12:10 PM
A bill written by politicians for politicians, vague, without an actual plan and without considering the consequences of it.

Can this plan be executed? Sure it can. Will this mean we are going to actually do something outside of LEO by 2018? Of course not. This plan should be dubbed "the politician's plan of boldly going to LEO until re-re-re-re-re-re-re-reelection saving jobs at big contractors". Is saving jobs a bad thing? Of course not, but I doubt it justifies keeping NASA in LEO forever, which this plan clearly does.

Let's not kid ourselves, no later than 2013 for US access to orbit is not going to fly. Also, an HLV may be ready by 2018, but with Shuttle Extension AND an HLV development program everything else gets cancelled out to 0.

Below is this "compromise budget". It doesn't touch any Science line-items, because that would be bad press, it doesn't touch aeronautics, education, cross-agency support etc. either. The ISS line-item gets a boost just as planned. What happens if this plan (Shutte to 2015; Orion is kept; Ares I transitioned to HLV line-item; HLV developed) is going forward? Well, exactly, we are were we were in the last 5 years. Boldly going to LEO, all technology line-items, the commercial crew line-item, the robotic precursor line-item, all need to be zeroed out. A lunar lander? Not in there. Any lunar surface technology development? No money.

Does that inspire kids and move NASA forward? Of course not, but it's a nice budget in an election year, as it basically changes nothing at all.

FYI, the budget chart you provided is not associated with the Hutchison Bill.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/04/2010 12:15 PM
Now this is the plan that I expected from the Obama administration, before we were blindsided with the radical, and imo rushed, shift that's called for in their actual budget proposal.

Indeed.

And yet the threat of the more radical prospects of the February 1st budget could very well be what is needed to motivate the contractors to accept new contracts that transition from Constellation to in-line shuttle derived at an affordable price.

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/04/2010 12:20 PM
Looking at the end of the preliminary bill, what I really want to know is how they want to fit ISS operations, Shuttle operations AND SFS into 4.29bn (Space Operations) by FY2012 from 6.18bn in FY2010 and 4.89bn in FY2011. Well, maybe they are "utilising" the ISS fully by de-orbiting it... there is no other way to squeeze a 2bn STS program and 1bn SFS as well as a 3bn+ ISS program into 4.29bn...

Not sure what "preliminary" bill you're referencing; the one associated with this discussion and Chris's article is the version that was introduced and is now entitled S. 3068.

In any event, you need to read the language a little more carefully, I think. On page 36, starting at line 4, there are three paragraphs (d) (e) and (f), which each provide authorizations that are IN ADDITION to those in the previous pages, and all of which are additive to Space Operations. They include the cost of Shuttle operations (paragraph (d), procurement of ISS spares, etc. (paragraph (e), and ISS National Laboratory management (paragraph (f).
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: William Barton on 03/04/2010 12:20 PM

PS: It's weird to read Republican Senators insisting on a government-developed solution awaiting evidence that the private sector can do the job...

Quite so. This should properly be read to mean that they're not sure whether private space venture investors/executives/employees will become useful campaign contributors and are ensuring that their existing contributors in oldspace still have their jobs and remember them at election time...

If the Democrats came out in favor of laissez faire macro-economic policy and an end to all non-defense entitlement programs, the Republicans would hoist the hammer & sickle.

Can we keep this on topic and not political?

It's hard to see any thread beginning with the word "Lawmakers" as being in any way nonpolitical. So yes, it's as on-topic as it can possibly be.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: William Barton on 03/04/2010 12:22 PM
[quote author=Jim link=topic=20720.msg555697#msg555697

Because again, this is the real world and not Swallow's fantasy world. 
A. most of those items are not within the visible horizon. 
B.  Also why do they need regulation?
C.  If they do need regulation, not enough is known to develop the rules.

One comment about the thing that is on the horizon (non-NASA space stations), I think regulation will probably depend on something like "flagging." And ITAR.


Hence the use of the words "most of those"
[/quote]

I wasn't disagreeing or misunderstanding, just comment ingabout the one excluded from "most." I'd be interested in your opinion on that matter, too. Will we ever see, for example, a Liberian-flagged space station made in and launched from the USA, or will ITAR stand in the way of that?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/04/2010 12:34 PM
Spot on, William Barton . . .

ITAR reform and non-NASA space stations (and moon bases?) are the rhinos in the living room that even the most vocal advocates of commercial crew & cargo prefer to avoid talking about.

ISS alone cannot possibly sustain a robust commercial crew capability (not enough flights) and yet the proposal floated February 1st seems to do little, if anything, to hasten the arrival of non-NASA destinations in LEO, or elsewhere.

And that is why I find NewSpace enthusiasm for the original February proposal to be rather odd.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 12:38 PM
Looking at the end of the preliminary bill, what I really want to know is how they want to fit ISS operations, Shuttle operations AND SFS into 4.29bn (Space Operations) by FY2012 from 6.18bn in FY2010 and 4.89bn in FY2011. Well, maybe they are "utilising" the ISS fully by de-orbiting it... there is no other way to squeeze a 2bn STS program and 1bn SFS as well as a 3bn+ ISS program into 4.29bn...

Not sure what "preliminary" bill you're referencing; the one associated with this discussion and Chris's article is the version that was introduced and is now entitled S. 3068.

In any event, you need to read the language a little more carefully, I think. On page 36, starting at line 4, there are three paragraphs (d) (e) and (f), which each provide authorizations that are IN ADDITION to those in the previous pages, and all of which are additive to Space Operations. They include the cost of Shuttle operations (paragraph (d), procurement of ISS spares, etc. (paragraph (e), and ISS National Laboratory management (paragraph (f).

Only that this won't happen. NASA isn't getting 3.5bn more in the next 2 years OVER the already increased budget.

And the technology and R&D line-items as well as the robotic precursor mission line-item would still have to be scraped in favor of the HLV line-item.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jim on 03/04/2010 12:49 PM
I'd be interested in your opinion on that matter, too. Will we ever see, for example, a Liberian-flagged space station made in and launched from the USA, or will ITAR stand in the way of that?

ITAR only deals with USA companies interacting with foreign ones.
 But there may be rules (union or safety) in the future that would cause weird things equivalent to no American flagged cruise ships. 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 01:03 PM

And the technology and R&D line-items as well as the robotic precursor mission line-item would still have to be scraped in favor of the HLV line-item.

Whoa, lots of posts of upset from you, along with a list of "statements of fact" - which are very danagerous, especially when some of them are clearly wrong (I found the "what about inspiring kids" especially ironic, as I'm not sure which kids we're talking about, when it comes to being inspired by "look Johnny, NASA's got you a new Global Warming chart" - "Wow, neat!").

However, the above is interesting. Even if that's correct - which it isn't if you read the Bill, or my article, as I quoted that part of the Bill on this - you're claiming you're in support of a HLV in the 2030s, over a HLV at least 10 years sooner?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 01:09 PM
A couple of points from the thread. It's related to politics, but it is not an excuse to bash a political party.

This thread is specific to the Bill, not a splinter thread for a non-confirmed rumors.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: William Barton on 03/04/2010 01:14 PM
A couple of points from the thread. It's related to politics, but it is not an excuse to bash a political party.

This thread is specific to the Bill, not a splinter thread for a non-confirmed rumors.

I apologise if I was perceived as bashing a particular political party. My point was, the two parties are so polarized, if one takes a position, the other takes the opposite one, often to our amazement. Sometimes, I do get carried away with hyperbole.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: William Barton on 03/04/2010 01:24 PM
Spot on, William Barton . . .

ITAR reform and non-NASA space stations (and moon bases?) are the rhinos in the living room that even the most vocal advocates of commercial crew & cargo prefer to avoid talking about.

ISS alone cannot possibly sustain a robust commercial crew capability (not enough flights) and yet the proposal floated February 1st seems to do little, if anything, to hasten the arrival of non-NASA destinations in LEO, or elsewhere.

And that is why I find NewSpace enthusiasm for the original February proposal to be rather odd.

I think the enthusiasm for the February proposal is based on the way it essentially cleared the field for commercial crew, by shutting down STS and cancelling CxP. SpaceX and OSC have their COTS money, and their CRS contracts, which puts them ahead of the game. The CxP-embedded contractors are left to pick up the pieces and try to put together a CCDEV plan from bits and pieces of CxP, or else go from scratch, as, for example, DreamChaser on EELV. The new bill seems to pull the rug out from under the NewSpace competitors because extending STS to 2015 palliates the "gap crisis," and makes CCDEV seems less urgent. Reestablishing any or all components of CxP would simply put everyone back where they were last year. I honestly don't know what I hope for anymore. There are pluses and minuses everywhere I look.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 01:25 PM
A couple of points from the thread. It's related to politics, but it is not an excuse to bash a political party.

This thread is specific to the Bill, not a splinter thread for a non-confirmed rumors.

I apologise if I was perceived as bashing a particular political party. My point was, the two parties are so polarized, if one takes a position, the other takes the opposite one, often to our amazement. Sometimes, I do get carried away with hyperbole.

It was more a pre-emptive housekeeping effort to deter others from reacting to such comments (especially newly joined members) - from which a thread can go downhill fast.

But on the valid topic of politics in relation to this (such as your above comment), I wonder if we will see a bi-partizan approach to a Bill like this, or if we'll see party lines being drawn, even over their personal and traditonal support for the space program.

It seemed to be rather bi-partizan at the Senate and Congressional hearings the other week.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/04/2010 01:27 PM
The bill, as currently drafted, appears to be a partial NASA authorization bill. For this bill to have the effect of law, the House version and the Senate version must be passed in each House, and a reconciled identical version must then be drafted by leaders of the two Houses, and then that identical version must be passed by both Houses and sent to the President for signature.

That is what it will take for the draft bill to become actual binding law. Having said that, the result would be an authorization of funding, not an actual appropriation. The appropriations would have to follow the guidelines set up by the enacted version of the Hutchinson bill, but clearly the Hutchinson bill is not a comprehensive NASA authorization, so there would be a lot of grey areas that Appropriations would have to navigate.

This is assuming that the Hutchinson bill would be enacted in a timely manner, so that Appropriations could follow.

Its pretty obvious that the above path is fairly perilous.


Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/04/2010 01:28 PM
I think the enthusiasm for the February proposal is based on the way it essentially cleared the field for commercial crew, by shutting down STS

STS was shut down by a decision of President George W. Bush in January 2004.

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/04/2010 01:31 PM
No, no, no.  We can't have a Liberian flagged space station, 'cause then we'd have to worry about Somali pirates.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 01:32 PM
Whoa, lots of posts of upset from you, along with a list of "statements of fact" - which are very danagerous, especially when some of them are clearly wrong (I found the "what about inspiring kids" especially ironic, as I'm not sure which kids we're talking about, when it comes to being inspired by "look Johnny, NASA's got you a new Global Warming chart" - "Wow, neat!").

Chris, as a matter of fact, this path they are proposing (STS extension and HLV development) will leave NASA doing nothing but have expensive systems to go to the ISS instead of lean systems to go to the ISS. NASA just won't get a 15bn budget increase as suggested by this amendment bill over 5 years. Not in this budget environment.

1. How likely is it that NASA will get an increase in budget of more than 10% from FY2010 to FY2011 and further 6% from FY2011 to FY2012 as proposed in this amendment bill? I say it's impossible.

2. If the budget stays as proposed (6bn more in the next 5 years) what would STS extension AND HLV development AND keeping Orion do to the budget? The above numbers I posted hold absolutely true when you look at that scenariom everything that is proposed in the new budget (technology line items, robotic precursor, commercial crew program) need to be scraped in favor or STS extension, HLV development and Orion. So in 5-6 years you might have Orion in 8 years an HLV and you used STS 2 times a year (while still relying on Soyuz for lifeboat services) and then you end up going nowhere, because you don't have anything developed for BEO flights.

3. But even if the budget is increased as proposed, the only line-item we can "play" with is Exploration with FY2011: 4263bn and FY2012: 4577bn:
Orion makes up 1938.9bn and 2056.1bn respectively, the Human Research Program 215bn each year, commercial cargo incentives shall not be scraped so that's another 312bn in FY2011 only (and I am not even talking about program integration + other advanced capabilities line-items from the current FY2010 budget). That leaves us with ~1800bn in FY2011 and about ~2300bn in FY2012 for a. an HLV development program + in-deep space propulsion b. the robotic precursor mission program and c. the Exploration Tech and R&D line item as well. Something will have to give in as the money available isn't enough for all of a. to c.

Quote
However, the above is interesting. Even if that's correct - which it isn't if you read the Bill, or my article, as I quoted that part of the Bill on this - you're claiming you're in support of a HLV in the 2030s, over a HLV at least 10 years sooner?

Not sure where you get that I claim I am in support of an HLV in the 2030s vs. an HLV 10 years sooner. I am in support of a sustainable path for NASA, not a dream that will be cancelled again due to future budget shortfalls which will come again no matter what.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/04/2010 01:36 PM
Spot on, William Barton . . .

ITAR reform and non-NASA space stations (and moon bases?) are the rhinos in the living room that even the most vocal advocates of commercial crew & cargo prefer to avoid talking about.

ISS alone cannot possibly sustain a robust commercial crew capability (not enough flights) and yet the proposal floated February 1st seems to do little, if anything, to hasten the arrival of non-NASA destinations in LEO, or elsewhere.

And that is why I find NewSpace enthusiasm for the original February proposal to be rather odd.

I think the enthusiasm for the February proposal is based on the way it essentially cleared the field for commercial crew, by shutting down STS and cancelling CxP. SpaceX and OSC have their COTS money, and their CRS contracts, which puts them ahead of the game. The CxP-embedded contractors are left to pick up the pieces and try to put together a CCDEV plan from bits and pieces of CxP, or else go from scratch, as, for example, DreamChaser on EELV. The new bill seems to pull the rug out from under the NewSpace competitors because extending STS to 2015 palliates the "gap crisis," and makes CCDEV seems less urgent. Reestablishing any or all components of CxP would simply put everyone back where they were last year. I honestly don't know what I hope for anymore. There are pluses and minuses everywhere I look.

Whatever bill eventually passes, if we supplement that bill with support for non-NASA destinations in LEO, NewSpace will do just fine.

A Bigelow based LEO hotel will need dozens of SpaceX Dragon flights per year, not merely a tiny handful. 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: William Barton on 03/04/2010 01:41 PM
I think the enthusiasm for the February proposal is based on the way it essentially cleared the field for commercial crew, by shutting down STS

STS was shut down by a decision of President George W. Bush in January 2004.



There was absolutely nothing to stop Obama and/or Congress from reversing that decision. W lost his veto authority when he went back to TX. The February proposal confirm the decision and added cancellation of CxP, which was noted in the rest of the sentence. The two things together are what make the Feb proposal so specifically appealing to NewSpace. No STS to ISS. No Orion to ISS. The only way SpaceX and OSC can lose in this scenario is if Dragon and Cygnus are still on the ground come 2013 and "Orion Lite" is flying. And note it needs to be both. If Dragon and Cygnus are on the ground and "Orion Lite" is still powerpoint, then all that's happened is CCDEV has moved rightwards. (For simplicity's sake, I'm deliberately ignoring possibilities such as DreamChaser or some dark-horse candidate working out. "Orion Lite" is a stalking horse for everything else.)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: William Barton on 03/04/2010 01:48 PM
A couple of points from the thread. It's related to politics, but it is not an excuse to bash a political party.

This thread is specific to the Bill, not a splinter thread for a non-confirmed rumors.

I apologise if I was perceived as bashing a particular political party. My point was, the two parties are so polarized, if one takes a position, the other takes the opposite one, often to our amazement. Sometimes, I do get carried away with hyperbole.

It was more a pre-emptive housekeeping effort to deter others from reacting to such comments (especially newly joined members) - from which a thread can go downhill fast.

But on the valid topic of politics in relation to this (such as your above comment), I wonder if we will see a bi-partizan approach to a Bill like this, or if we'll see party lines being drawn, even over their personal and traditonal support for the space program.

It seemed to be rather bi-partizan at the Senate and Congressional hearings the other week.

Gotcha. I'm honestly baffled by the political goings-on right now. I'm being as cynical as possible, and taking everything as Kool-Aid until proven otherwise. In that light, the driver of bipartisanism may only be jobs/vote-getting. I don't see any other externals that would pentrate the fog of politics. I was alive (and in elementary school) for Sputnik, the Missle Gap, and Vostok, and I remember being baffled back then, wondering, "What? Weren't they paying attention while all this was happening?" And now, where were all these politicians for the past six years?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: SpacexULA on 03/04/2010 01:49 PM
I like the timescale for HLV. The Bolden plan for HLV is a disgrace.

Without the Bolden plan, Congress would have NEVER came up with this plan.  They fight Obama on everything.  ANYTHING he had suggested would have been lampooned. 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/04/2010 01:54 PM
STS was shut down by a decision of President George W. Bush in January 2004.

There was absolutely nothing to stop Obama and/or Congress from reversing that decision.

I was simply making the clarifying point that it was George W. Bush in 2004 who made the decision to cancel the Shuttle. Of course, for 4 years after that decision, Bush had the opportunity to reverse course, and prepare for extending the Shuttle program, but that did not happen.

My understanding is that it would take 3 years from ATP to produce new External Tanks, so the Gap could not be fully erased even if Obama decided today to continue the Shuttle program.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/04/2010 01:55 PM
But on the valid topic of politics in relation to this (such as your above comment), I wonder if we will see a bi-partizan approach to a Bill like this, or if we'll see party lines being drawn, even over their personal and traditonal support for the space program.

It seemed to be rather bi-partizan at the Senate and Congressional hearings the other week.
It has the support of some Dems and Reps, but the lines on this aren't along party lines and probably haven't changed much, except for the Administration's position, which is different.  There's a group that supports this HSF proposal and funding "everything" (so to speak) and there's a group that is trying to control spending on things they aren't particularly interested in one way or the other.  In past years, the latter group has won -- NASA's top line stays about the same, with that kind of "zero-sum" feel to them.

The hearings last week and this HSF bill come from the former group; if it had been up to them, CxP very likely would have gotten the money that Griffin expected.

The Administration doesn't really fit into either group, but has a bigger say in what is ultimately signed into law.  In terms of politics/votes this year, they are more closely aligned with the group that wants to hold NASA's top line.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/04/2010 01:57 PM
I posted earlier about the path the Hutchinson bill must follow to become law. I would appreciate it greatly if anyone who posts about the wonders of this draft bill would look at the path it must take before assuming the Hutchinson bill has more than a one percent chance of enactment.

I would increase the probabilities of success if the bill were to attract significant co-sponsorship, otherwise, I will assume its a vanity bill, designed for political purposes.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/04/2010 01:58 PM
My understanding is that it would take 3 years from ATP to produce new External Tanks, so the Gap could not be fully erased even if Obama decided today to continue the Shuttle program.
I think you're correct; however, there are parts for two or three tanks that have been fabricated.  Assembling those probably won't take that long.  IF Shuttle Operations was fully funded for FY 2011 along the lines authorized here, they could fly the spare tank and booster set that's currently left over for LON first while finishing integration of the parts of another tank.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 01:59 PM
It would be nice if it happenned but I doubt that the "additionnal" Shuttle extension money will get appropriated.

The only concern I have is that the R&D for BEO in this bill gets reallocated to the HLV. The argument here is that a firm date for the HLV is needed in order for the BEO program to get any traction.

The good news in all of this is that everybody agrees that commercial crew is a good idea. The bad news is that we are spending all our money on rockets or Shuttle. But the President should have know that an HLV in 2025 wouldn't be acceptable to Congress. The HLV needs to be ready for 2020 at the latest. The President will have to compromise on the HLV.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 02:04 PM
I posted earlier about the path the Hutchinson bill must follow to become law. I would appreciate it greatly if anyone who posts about the wonders of this draft bill would look at the path it must take before assuming the Hutchinson bill has more than a one percent chance of enactment.

I would increase the probabilities of success if the bill were to attract significant co-sponsorship, otherwise, I will assume its a vanity bill, designed for political purposes.


There is plans for a NASA 2010 Authorization bill. Whether it is this bill or not makes no difference. They could still take some elements of this bill and incorporate it in a 2010 NASA Authorization Bill. Senator Nelson mentionned that Congress would be tweeking the NASA FY2011 budget.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 02:13 PM


My understanding is that it would take 3 years from ATP to produce new External Tanks, so the Gap could not be fully erased even if Obama decided today to continue the Shuttle program.


Incorrect. 18 months to two years max.

STS-135 = ET-122.
STS-136 to STS-138 completion of part built tanks. Friction weld (they all are now anyway).
STS-139 would require the first new tank.

That's officially from MAF.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: phantomdj on 03/04/2010 02:14 PM
It would be nice if it happenned but I doubt that the "additionnal" Shuttle extension money will get appropriated.

The only concern I have is that the R&D for BEO in this bill gets reallocated to the HLV. The argument here is that a firm date for the HLV is needed in order for the BEO program to get any traction.

The good news in all of this is that everybody agrees that commercial crew is a good idea. The bad news is that we are spending all our money on rockets or Shuttle. But the President should have know that an HLV in 2025 wouldn't be acceptable to Congress. The HLV needs to be ready for 2020 at the latest. The President will have to compromise on the HLV.

Robert Crippen, former astronaut who served as pilot aboard shuttle Columbia on the first shuttle and past director of Kennedy Space Center make a good argument to keep the shuttles flying.

"The decision to cancel our exploration program, Constellation, and continue with the retirement of the space shuttle makes no sense…I strongly support pushing commercial space capabilities. But planning to use that commercial capability as the only means to launch our crews is foolish. We’d be extremely lucky to develop that within a decade."

"Some say the shuttle is too dangerous. It isn’t, or we wouldn’t still be flying it…Yes, we’ve lost both the Challenger and Columbia, but each time the vehicle has been made safer and program management improved…Yes, we’ve shut down some of the manufacturing capability for the shuttle, but that can be turned around a lot faster than we can develop a new vehicle."

"Yes, it costs money, but that money is available in the current $19 billion budget proposal by redirecting some of the funding from other programs…This would remove our total reliance on the Russians and keep that funding in the United States. It would allow us to continue to operate the ISS in a more productive manner until one of these commercial entities proved they had the wherewithal to launch our crews…It is not a matter of can we afford it. We cannot afford not to."

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100303/COLUMNISTS0205/100302017/1138/opinion/Robert+Crippen++Keep+the+shuttle+flying

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: phantomdj on 03/04/2010 02:16 PM
I posted earlier about the path the Hutchinson bill must follow to become law. I would appreciate it greatly if anyone who posts about the wonders of this draft bill would look at the path it must take before assuming the Hutchinson bill has more than a one percent chance of enactment.

I would increase the probabilities of success if the bill were to attract significant co-sponsorship, otherwise, I will assume its a vanity bill, designed for political purposes.


I agree and as I mentioned in an earlier post, this bill need major co-sponsors or it isn't going anywhere.  Write your congress person.  I've added Appropriations Committee from both House and Senate.

House Committee on Budget
John Spratt (D-SC) [Chairman]
Paul Ryan (R-WI) [Ranking Member]

House Committee on Appropriations
Dave Obey (D-WI) [Chairman]
Jerry Lewis (R-CA) [Ranking Member]

House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV) [Chairman]
Frank R. Wolf (R-VA) [Ranking Member]

House Committee on Science and Technology
Bart Gordon (D-TN) [Chair]
Ralph Hall (R-TX) [Ranking Member]

House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) [Chair]
Pete Olson (R-TX) [Ranking Member]

Senate Committee on the Budget
Kent Conrad (D-ND) [Chairman]
Judd Gregg (R-NH) [Ranking Member]

Senate Committee on Appropriations
Dan Inouye (D-HI) [Chairman]
Thad Cochran (R-MS) [Vice Chairman]

Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) [Chairman]
Richard Shelby (R-AL) [Ranking Member]

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) [Chairman]
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) [Ranking Member]

Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space
Bill Nelson (D-FL) [Chair]
David Vitter (R-LA) [Ranking Member]
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Martin FL on 03/04/2010 02:27 PM
It might be a good sign if the members of a commercial interest on here are protesting.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Peter NASA on 03/04/2010 02:28 PM

I posted earlier about the path the Hutchinson bill must follow to become law. I would appreciate it greatly if anyone who posts about the wonders of this draft bill would look at the path it must take before assuming the Hutchinson bill has more than a one percent chance of enactment.

A similar argument could be made for the chances of the current forward plan being approved by Congress. There has to be a compromise, there will be a compromise, and you seem to be using the "this Bill, word for word, won't get through". Probably not, but that's not the purpose. The purpose is to create a basis of argument for Congress to find that middle ground.

To that purpose, this Bill is excellent.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 02:48 PM
The bad news is that we are spending all our money on rockets or Shuttle. But the President should have know that an HLV in 2025 wouldn't be acceptable to Congress. The HLV needs to be ready for 2020 at the latest. The President will have to compromise on the HLV.

Thank God, Congress hasn't done space architecture in the past, otherwise NASA would never have gotten a single human being into orbit.

Anyway, let's dissect the claim of having an HLV ready by 2025 or 2020 or at all. Where does this come from? Well, this wasn't plan until 2005, at least noone was talking about 100mt+ S-HLVs. Before 2005, most people agreed it would not be a sustainable path to base an architecture around large S-HLVs, so architectures were based on 20mt, 50mt and maybe 60-70mt rockets. We need to finally get back to common sense that was available before 2005 and Congress needs to do that too. An HLV sure is important, but it sure doesn't need to be a 100mt to LEO vehicle and an HLV without allocating a lot MORE money to payloads for said HLV is a track towards not doing anything BEO.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/04/2010 02:49 PM
"The new bill seems to pull the rug out from under the NewSpace competitors because extending STS to 2015 palliates the "gap crisis," and makes CCDEV seems less urgent."

I don't think so.  NewSpace has got plenty to do, and plenty of money to make.  Their sense of urgency, I think, will continue under the proposed bill since they would be virtually certain to be able to send cargo up to ISS for less than the shuttle costs, and therefore it's to their advantage to hustle.

The bill seems pretty good to me, at least on a first read.

In the opening words of the article, Chris pointed out how Griffin sorta played the part of Brutus:  he was one of the first to stab the shuttle program, right under Bush's nose.  I don't get why the new administrator seems to want to make the final stab at killing the shuttle.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/04/2010 02:54 PM
My understanding is that it would take 3 years from ATP to produce new External Tanks, so the Gap could not be fully erased even if Obama decided today to continue the Shuttle program.

There is actually sufficient ET hardware to support 8 (possibly 9) more flights including the 4 currently manifested and the LON tank.

Depending on when this plan gets signed-off, one of this year's flights could be bumped to FY11, and the existing hardware could then support 2 flights per year through FY12 and FY13, assuming the final LON being provided by two (already paid for?) Soyuz instead of Shuttle.

With SSP's estimate of FY2013 for an IOC flight of an In-Line SD-HLV, and LM's estimate of Orion being ready to fly in FY2013 as well, this approach would close the gap to zero.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Longhorn John on 03/04/2010 02:55 PM

Anyway, let's dissect the claim of having an HLV ready by 2025 or 2020 or at all. Where does this come from?


SD HLV. It's very clear, and very obvious.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/lawmakers-bill-extend-shuttle-2015-hlv/


"Game Changing" is just an excuse for a HDLV (Heavily Delayed Launch Vehicle).
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: William Barton on 03/04/2010 02:56 PM
"The new bill seems to pull the rug out from under the NewSpace competitors because extending STS to 2015 palliates the "gap crisis," and makes CCDEV seems less urgent."

I don't think so.  NewSpace has got plenty to do, and plenty of money to make.  Their sense of urgency, I think, will continue under the proposed bill since they would be virtually certain to be able to send cargo up to ISS for less than the shuttle costs, and therefore it's to their advantage to hustle.

The bill seems pretty good to me, at least on a first read.

In the opening words of the article, Chris pointed out how Griffin sorta played the part of Brutus:  he was one of the first to stab the shuttle program, right under Bush's nose.  I don't get why the new administrator seems to want to make the final stab at killing the shuttle.

That's not strictly accurate. SpaceX and OSC have plenty to do, and money to make if they succeed. But if STS is continued to 2015, where's the urgency for space, new or old? And suppose SpaceX and OSC fail to deliver the goods? STS will take up the slack. If there weren't any more disasters between then and now, come 2015, what's to stop Congress from saying, "Okay, lets just keep flying STS 'til the end of ISS in 2020?" That's what I was saying, with regard to the "gap crisis" and the urgency of CCDEV. The easiest way to solve a problem is to ignore it, until something bad happens. Then it's too late.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 03:01 PM
Here's a question to keep this thread on track, as opposed to personal perferences (unavoidable, I have my own too ;D).

How long - even on the fastest timeline - can these Bill/Act processes take to enactment?

There's an important factor here, time is desperately running out (some would argue it already has - but it's close regardless), when it comes to shuttle.

And that leads me to Peter's point. That this still has some use to provide some documentation for Congress to find a middle ground.

I won't pretend to understand politics, so input would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 03:05 PM
I don't think so.  NewSpace has got plenty to do, and plenty of money to make.  Their sense of urgency, I think, will continue under the proposed bill since they would be virtually certain to be able to send cargo up to ISS for less than the shuttle costs, and therefore it's to their advantage to hustle.

At 2 MPLM flights per year with the Shuttle, NASA won't even need its allocation at HTV or ATV for full utilisation of the ISS, and it definitely will require CRS flights. With Shuttle extension to 2015, it's immaterial whether the Shuttle costs are much more than CRS costs per mt, it just wouldn't make any sense to fly any CRS flights at all because you don't need their cargo capacity.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 03:06 PM
The bad news is that we are spending all our money on rockets or Shuttle. But the President should have know that an HLV in 2025 wouldn't be acceptable to Congress. The HLV needs to be ready for 2020 at the latest. The President will have to compromise on the HLV.

Thank God, Congress hasn't done space architecture in the past, otherwise NASA would never have gotten a single human being into orbit.

Anyway, let's dissect the claim of having an HLV ready by 2025 or 2020 or at all. Where does this come from? Well, this wasn't plan until 2005, at least noone was talking about 100mt+ S-HLVs. Before 2005, most people agreed it would not be a sustainable path to base an architecture around large S-HLVs, so architectures were based on 20mt, 50mt and maybe 60-70mt rockets. We need to finally get back to common sense that was available before 2005 and Congress needs to do that too. An HLV sure is important, but it sure doesn't need to be a 100mt to LEO vehicle and an HLV without allocating a lot MORE money to payloads for said HLV is a track towards not doing anything BEO.

I was saying that 2025 is too far down the road. The 2025 date comes from Bolden in a press conference. The 2020 date was the year that Ares V was supposed to be ready and is also possibly the year that the ISS will get de-orbited. As far as how big the HLV needs to be, nobody seems to agree on this. Some believe that 50m ton is enough. Other believe that anything under 90mt-100mt ton isn't really an HLV.   
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 03:10 PM

I was saying that 2025 is too far down the road. The 2025 date comes from Bolden in a press conference.

Not to be picky, but I doubt Bolden specifically said "we are planning to haven an HLV ready by 2025". He consistently said "we don't know yet" when asked about dates, but he still said that BEO flights might get done a lot quicker than under the old plan. So, I doubt the 2025 figure. Do you remember which press conference that was?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/04/2010 03:10 PM
"2025" for HLV is based on Bolden's comments in a variety of press conferences and appearances now, where he has consistently said that with the President's Budget plan, an HLV should be ready between 2020 and 2030.

2025 is simply the mid-point in that range.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: jarmumd on 03/04/2010 03:11 PM
... But if STS is continued to 2015, where's the urgency for space, new or old? And suppose SpaceX and OSC fail to deliver the goods? STS will take up the slack. If there weren't any more disasters between then and now, come 2015, what's to stop Congress from saying, "Okay, lets just keep flying STS 'til the end of ISS in 2020?" That's what I was saying, with regard to the "gap crisis" and the urgency of CCDEV. The easiest way to solve a problem is to ignore it, until something bad happens. Then it's too late.

As I understood it, one of the CAIB recommendations was that if shuttle were to keep flying past X deadline in front of us, it has to be re-certified to continue to fly safely.  For STS to keep flying we would need to somehow pay for this or waiver this certification.  And if SpaceX or OSC fail (which ignores ULA, whom stands a far better chance), that's the whole point...  If commercial fails, not having a backup plan doesn't get them to succeed earlier...  If you want them to succeed earlier, they need more money and more incentive to finish better and faster.

NewSpace and commercialism is all about business, not meeting some panic gap, they will work harder for more money, not for ideals.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: dad2059 on 03/04/2010 03:14 PM
After reading all of this rhetoric for the past month, it seemed to me that nothing was going to get through the "pluses and minuses" and the extremes of both sides of the FY2011 issue. I was afraid everything was going to be de-funded and I still have a fear of that happening.

Actually, I liked the FY2011 Budget as is; everything should be privatized as much as possible and advanced propulsion tech should be pushed to the fore, it's been too long.

One thing did concern me; How was the ISS going to be supported without the proper logistics now that it was extended to 2020?

Sure, extending the shuttle short-term is good, but will it continue to be funded without cutting into the advanced propulsion and science line items?

And I have a question for the forum; "If the FY2011 Budget had been proposed by a Republican President John McCain, would there have been as much resistance to it?"

I believe the question to be fair and relevant to the topic at hand.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jason Davies on 03/04/2010 03:15 PM
Well I think it's a great plan. People have said it before, but we're retiring the shuttle  at a time the ISS is extending. Makes no sense.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: sewand on 03/04/2010 03:19 PM
The bad news is that we are spending all our money on rockets or Shuttle. But the President should have know that an HLV in 2025 wouldn't be acceptable to Congress. The HLV needs to be ready for 2020 at the latest. The President will have to compromise on the HLV.

Thank God, Congress hasn't done space architecture in the past, otherwise NASA would never have gotten a single human being into orbit.

Anyway, let's dissect the claim of having an HLV ready by 2025 or 2020 or at all. Where does this come from? Well, this wasn't plan until 2005, at least noone was talking about 100mt+ S-HLVs. Before 2005, most people agreed it would not be a sustainable path to base an architecture around large S-HLVs, so architectures were based on 20mt, 50mt and maybe 60-70mt rockets. We need to finally get back to common sense that was available before 2005 and Congress needs to do that too. An HLV sure is important, but it sure doesn't need to be a 100mt to LEO vehicle and an HLV without allocating a lot MORE money to payloads for said HLV is a track towards not doing anything BEO.

I wouldn't say that's much of an argument.  Prior to 2001, no one was talking about doing exploration with EELV-class vehicles - it was assumed to be heavy lift.  That no more invalidates EELV than your argument invalidates HLV.

It all comes down to cost comparisons.  Get a realistic comparison of an HLV-centric architecture (aka DIRECT) against an EELV architecture.   From everything I've read, that comparison was not done by Bolden prior to this budget's announcement, unless you count Augustine and he said they all come in around the same time and budget.  Let's not assume one method is cheaper than another until a serious effort has been to compare mission, launch rates, and risk.  In particular:
How we address gap closure, if at all?
How do we address retention of key workforce skills?
What is the future of ISS, up to and after 2020?
What do we want to do for exploration?  (Moon, flexible path, etc)
When do we want to do exploration?  (2020, 2030, ...)


Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 03:21 PM
"2025" for HLV is based on Bolden's comments in a variety of press conferences and appearances now, where he has consistently said that with the President's Budget plan, an HLV should be ready between 2020 and 2030.

2025 is simply the mid-point in that range.

Ross.

Yes that is what I meant. Bolden mentionned this during the press conference linked below (but he wasn't entirely clear on the exact date and he said that they hadn't yet fixed one but the mid-2020s was a reasonable estimate for an HLV at this point):

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20364.msg537979#msg537979
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/04/2010 03:21 PM
And I have a question for the forum; "If the FY2011 Budget had been proposed by a Republican President John McCain, would there have been as much resistance to it?"
I believe so, since I don't believe the "sides" of this are Democrat / Republican.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: phantomdj on 03/04/2010 03:23 PM

NewSpace has got plenty to do, and plenty of money to make.  Their sense of urgency, I think, will continue under the proposed bill since they would be virtually certain to be able to send cargo up to ISS for less than the shuttle costs, and therefore it's to their advantage to hustle.


Yes, like keeping the cork on their rocket during testing!  Tongue firmly in cheek.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 03:25 PM
Yes that is what I meant. Bolden mentionned this during the press conference linked below (but he wasn't entirely clear on the exact date and he said that they hadn't yet fixed one but the mid-2020 was a reasonable estimate for an HLV at this point):

Plus, he also said that, while he wouldn't baseline it, the new technology programs might get us to destinations beyond Earth orbit a lot sooner than the old plan. So, to sum up, there just aren't any hard dates yet. It could be 2020, it could be 2025, it could be no date at all for an HLV. They need to formulate the date first and they need to ask themselves if 100mt vehicles are the way to go at all.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/04/2010 03:26 PM
I believe CAIB's recommendation was aimed at a program which was going to continue operating "normally" well beyond 2010.   I don't personally consider a plan for just three flights after that, as the same thing.

There are a variety of options which don't require re-cert for such a small number of flights going beyond that date.

I personally wonder why they can't simply be flown with a waiver and be done with it without requiring exorbitant additional costs.

I see no real-world reason why a Shuttle which is considered safe to fly on 30th September, 2010 suddenly needs re-certification if the launch date slips 24 hours to 1st October.   That indicates an arbitrary date and I would suggest that it is actually the choices which led to the fixing of that date which need to be re-examined in the light of these particular circumstances.

Assuming the vehicles are given the appropriate level of care, and as long as SSP continue to demonstrate their excellent record of due-diligence which everyone here has witnessed since STS-114, I think this re-cert issue is one which can, and should, be altered, or given a waiver.

YMMV.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: dad2059 on 03/04/2010 03:27 PM
And I have a question for the forum; "If the FY2011 Budget had been proposed by a Republican President John McCain, would there have been as much resistance to it?"
I believe so, since I don't believe the "sides" of this are Democrat / Republican.


I was wondering since this issue, like the Health Care seemed to be bitterly partisan.

But as you say, now that I recall, the Constellation Program enjoyed bipartisan support.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: phantomdj on 03/04/2010 03:28 PM
I believe CAIB's recommendation was aimed at a program which was going to continue operating "normally" well beyond 2010.   There are a variety of options which don't require re-cert for such a small number of flights going beyond that date.

I personally wonder why they can't simply be flown with a waiver and be done with it.

I see no real-world reason why a Shuttle which is considered safe to fly on 30th September, 2010 suddenly needs re-certification if the launch date slips 24 hours to 1st October.

Assuming the vehicles are given the appropriate level of care, and as long as SSP continue to demonstrate their excellent record of due-diligence which everyone here has witnessed since STS-114, I think this re-cert issue is one which can, and should, be given a waiver.

YMMV.

Ross.

Robert Crippen, former astronaut who served as pilot aboard shuttle Columbia on the first shuttle and past director of Kennedy Space Center make a good argument to keep the shuttles flying.

"The decision to cancel our exploration program, Constellation, and continue with the retirement of the space shuttle makes no sense…I strongly support pushing commercial space capabilities. But planning to use that commercial capability as the only means to launch our crews is foolish. We’d be extremely lucky to develop that within a decade."

"Some say the shuttle is too dangerous. It isn’t, or we wouldn’t still be flying it…Yes, we’ve lost both the Challenger and Columbia, but each time the vehicle has been made safer and program management improved…Yes, we’ve shut down some of the manufacturing capability for the shuttle, but that can be turned around a lot faster than we can develop a new vehicle."

"Yes, it costs money, but that money is available in the current $19 billion budget proposal by redirecting some of the funding from other programs…This would remove our total reliance on the Russians and keep that funding in the United States. It would allow us to continue to operate the ISS in a more productive manner until one of these commercial entities proved they had the wherewithal to launch our crews…It is not a matter of can we afford it. We cannot afford not to."

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100303/COLUMNISTS0205/100302017/1138/opinion/Robert+Crippen++Keep+the+shuttle+flying

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 03:29 PM
Yes, like keeping the cork on their rocket during testing!  Tongue firmly in cheek.
Cork is rocket science too... ;) and it's hard, just like this shows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey-pxV7qPZQ&feature=PlayList&p=865E2ABC4DF86E38&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=14 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey-pxV7qPZQ&feature=PlayList&p=865E2ABC4DF86E38&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=14)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/04/2010 03:30 PM
Well:
THANK GOD for Kay Baily Hutchinson :D :D . Now at least we have something that IMHO is on the right track.
HOWEVER:
1. It must be passed
2. It must get support (not a problem as I think Nelson, shelby, and others will jump on this and back it up)
3. If it is passed and enacted Bolden and or Garver (in the unlikely probability that she still works at NASA after this is over)  cannot muck it up. If Bolden really wanted to he could probably muck this up after enactment to the point that it doesn't work. But I don't know what he will do.
4. This is progress in the right direction IMHO. And no, the tech items do not ALL have to be zeroed out for this. That is because under this bill the budget goes UP another 3.5 billion dollars ON TOP OF THE FY2011 INCREASE!. Thats like 21 billion per year! More than enough, in my mind, to do the most key IMHO, tech development: an advandced in space propulsion system, namely an uprated VASIMIR, which would eventually launch on the uprated SDHLV (j 246 or j246 SH or another sdhlv config).
As to the robotic missions and the other tech development, I am not sad to see that go at all. Rad shielding tech development is an issue, however, but I beleive that can be worked in and tested in the future when needed. The key piece of tech development, the advandced in space propulsion, should remain in place. The other stuff should be cut and the money put towards building something (sdhlv, orion, ect) that can get us there and closing the gap (STS extension to 2015).

So you could say I am "in the middle" between the two extremes. Some tech development, sdhlv ONLY because its very cheap (relativley). Although, lockmart's hlv proposal using an ACES on an atlas is very interesting.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bernie Roehl on 03/04/2010 03:31 PM
And if SpaceX or OSC fail (which ignores ULA, whom stands a far better chance)

... of failing?   :-)

Seriously, though, I don't think any of the firms are likely to fail at their stated goals.  All three stand an excellent chance of success when it comes to launch vehicles, and two of them (ULA and SpaceX) will certainly be able to field human-rated LV's.  Atlas V and Delta IV are of course flying already, and can be human-rated by 2013.  Falcon 9 is on the pad, and was designed to be human-rated from the very beginning. 

To me, it's a non-issue -- we will certainly have at least two or three different human-rated launch vehicles, or four if we get an SDLV.  The more interesting question is what spacecraft will fly on them.

Much as I generally like the new proposed budget, I would like to see some money set aside for spacecraft development (particularly Dream Chaser, since SpaceX seems willing to invest it's own money in Dragon, Bigelow seems willing to invest in Orion Lite, and the revised plan clearly intends to fund LM to continue development of Orion).

Speaking of which...

I'm still unclear about the cost of Orion development.  I've heard $15B, I've heard $20B, but I've also heard it'll be flying by 2013.  Based on the newly proposed budget (which has LM's input incorporated into it) there's nowhere near that much being allocated.

(I'm trying to keep this focused on the budget, but it's hard to avoid talking about how the money in the budget will be spent...)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: William Barton on 03/04/2010 03:31 PM
... But if STS is continued to 2015, where's the urgency for space, new or old? And suppose SpaceX and OSC fail to deliver the goods? STS will take up the slack. If there weren't any more disasters between then and now, come 2015, what's to stop Congress from saying, "Okay, lets just keep flying STS 'til the end of ISS in 2020?" That's what I was saying, with regard to the "gap crisis" and the urgency of CCDEV. The easiest way to solve a problem is to ignore it, until something bad happens. Then it's too late.

As I understood it, one of the CAIB recommendations was that if shuttle were to keep flying past X deadline in front of us, it has to be re-certified to continue to fly safely.  For STS to keep flying we would need to somehow pay for this or waiver this certification.  And if SpaceX or OSC fail (which ignores ULA, whom stands a far better chance), that's the whole point...  If commercial fails, not having a backup plan doesn't get them to succeed earlier...  If you want them to succeed earlier, they need more money and more incentive to finish better and faster.

NewSpace and commercialism is all about business, not meeting some panic gap, they will work harder for more money, not for ideals.

The CAIB recertification requirement has been discussed here at length. The current sense is, RTF changes constitute "recertification" in large measure, so it's already been paid-for. As for "NewSpace and commercialism" being "all about business," that is, in essense, what I was saying. The "gap crisis" isn't about the space company end, it's about the budget. And, once again, show me the money. We'll see what happens with this bill. I will not believe any of this is going to happen, until a bill is passed, with budgetary appropriations in hand. When that happens, I'll review my collection of metaphorical hats and decide which (if any) of them is an appropriate snack. Right now, this bill is just so much political hot air. And even if the bill passes, I will point backward to 2004 and remind everyone what happened to all that hot air, proposed by the President and passed on by Congress. How do we suppose this bill will look from the vantagepoint of 2017 (one year after the 2016 Presidential election)?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/04/2010 03:33 PM
Whoa, lots of posts of upset from you, along with a list of "statements of fact" - which are very danagerous, especially when some of them are clearly wrong (I found the "what about inspiring kids" especially ironic, as I'm not sure which kids we're talking about, when it comes to being inspired by "look Johnny, NASA's got you a new Global Warming chart" - "Wow, neat!").

Chris, as a matter of fact, this path they are proposing (STS extension and HLV development) will leave NASA doing nothing but have expensive systems to go to the ISS instead of lean systems to go to the ISS. NASA just won't get a 15bn budget increase as suggested by this amendment bill over 5 years. Not in this budget environment.

1. How likely is it that NASA will get an increase in budget of more than 10% from FY2010 to FY2011 and further 6% from FY2011 to FY2012 as proposed in this amendment bill? I say it's impossible.

2. If the budget stays as proposed (6bn more in the next 5 years) what would STS extension AND HLV development AND keeping Orion do to the budget? The above numbers I posted hold absolutely true when you look at that scenariom everything that is proposed in the new budget (technology line items, robotic precursor, commercial crew program) need to be scraped in favor or STS extension, HLV development and Orion. So in 5-6 years you might have Orion in 8 years an HLV and you used STS 2 times a year (while still relying on Soyuz for lifeboat services) and then you end up going nowhere, because you don't have anything developed for BEO flights.

3. But even if the budget is increased as proposed, the only line-item we can "play" with is Exploration with FY2011: 4263bn and FY2012: 4577bn:
Orion makes up 1938.9bn and 2056.1bn respectively, the Human Research Program 215bn each year, commercial cargo incentives shall not be scraped so that's another 312bn in FY2011 only (and I am not even talking about program integration + other advanced capabilities line-items from the current FY2010 budget). That leaves us with ~1800bn in FY2011 and about ~2300bn in FY2012 for a. an HLV development program + in-deep space propulsion b. the robotic precursor mission program and c. the Exploration Tech and R&D line item as well. Something will have to give in as the money available isn't enough for all of a. to c.

Quote
However, the above is interesting. Even if that's correct - which it isn't if you read the Bill, or my article, as I quoted that part of the Bill on this - you're claiming you're in support of a HLV in the 2030s, over a HLV at least 10 years sooner?

Not sure where you get that I claim I am in support of an HLV in the 2030s vs. an HLV 10 years sooner. I am in support of a sustainable path for NASA, not a dream that will be cancelled again due to future budget shortfalls which will come again no matter what.

CLB22
This is your opinion. However the "claim for hlv by 2020" is very realistic and achievable. This is accomplished by using the SDHLV which can be ready by then or sooner. There are MANY facts to back that up, and if you want to question them please consult the DIRECT team who actually has done the research on ALL of this stuff.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 03/04/2010 03:38 PM
The following is only my opinion.
It might be a good sign if the members of a commercial interest on here are protesting.
Not at all.  Commercial Space // New Space // Orbital // Space X are all funded adequately in both bills.  Commercial space companies are interested only in the opportunity which both bills afford.  SpaceX’s private bank roll is impressive.
There is plans for a NASA 2010 Authorization bill. Whether it is this bill or not makes no difference. They could still take some elements of this bill and incorporate it in a 2010 NASA Authorization Bill. Senator Nelson mentionned that Congress would be tweeking the NASA FY2011 budget.
The word Mr. Nelson used was “perfect”.  Please try to use the words an elected pol uses.  I know this seems snarkish, and for that I do apologize, but it is important that we use the words they do for contextual reasons.
And I have a question for the forum; "If the FY2011 Budget had been proposed by a Republican President John McCain, would there have been as much resistance to it?"
I believe so, since I don't believe the "sides" of this are Democrat / Republican.
I agree.  If “President” McCain would have proposed this his “good friends” from the senate would have asked what he was thinking.  However, I am not sure this would have been Mr. McCain’s approach to NASA.  This is my opinion.
Some people here have talked about how it is “interesting” or “baffling” to see the political right to be fighting for more spending when it comes to NASA.  I would humbly suggest to you that many of us on the right do not view NASA as a jobs program.  Many on the right have a neo-conservative view of NASA.  This is a national security issue.  While yes, we do get to wave American flags and cheer at launches and recoveries, what concerns many people on the right is our national security to conduct HSF.
Another point that some on the right make is that NASA, when it isn’t wasting money, actually gives the US tax payer the best bang for the buck.  NASA is still riding on the coattails of spinoff technologies from the 70s and 80s.
“NASA” is one of the few programs on the hill that can bring a smile to most people’s face, regardless if they have a center in their state or district or if they are a republican or democrat or a liberal or a conserviative.  There are those on both the very far fringe right and the very far fringe left who could care less, but they are on the fringe.  The hill is so poisoned right now, it might actually be NASA that could bring some decorum back...
I do not subscribe to “the plan” put forth by the president.  What I do know is that over HALF of the TARP money passed last year of the stimulus bill is still unspent.  Depending on whose numbers you choose to accept, it is somewhere between 350 BILLION and 475 BILLION dollars.  Additionally, some financial institutions repaid their TARP money when they could or decided they did not like the rules that went along with accepting the TARP funds.  Bottom line, the US government can fund NASA if we really want to.
I wish I could do this but I cannot, someone needs to get the DIRECT/Jupiter word out in a public forum.  Maybe this is a political tactic that is waiting to be used.  I am not in a position to know.  What I do know is that the language used in Section 7 (b) and (d) screams DIRECT/Jupiter.  Maybe this is to satisfy Mr. Shelby and Ms. Giffords, but either way, there is enough reference material on DIRECT to have a legitimate debate if we should use this architecture.  It is my opinion, and I only speak for me, that we should.
This really blew me away, on page 37, Section 9 (g):
Quote from: Section 9 (g)
1 (g) NO FISCAL YEAR LIMITATION ON FUNDING.—
2 All funds appropriated pursuant to this section shall re-
3 main available until expended.

I hope Administrator Bolden pulls in the financial reigns on some of his centers and cuts the pork.  The NASA history is legendary and so is its bureaucracy. 

<snip>

How long - even on the fastest timeline - can these Bill/Act processes take to enactment?

<snip>

I won't pretend to understand politics, so input would be appreciated.

As someone brought up earlier, this bill will need co-sponsors; particularly on the Democratic side of the isle.  The Democrats have commanding majorities (by the numbers anyway) in both the upper and lower chambers of congress.  The Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, can use her privilege as speaker to bring the bill to a vote (GOOD LUCK); however, the only thing anyone seems to be concerned about is healthcare right now and I, my OWN personal view, don’t see anything moving through either chamber quickly.  I could see the Senate getting their version through first (as whacky as this sounds).

Maybe 51D sees it differently.

VR
RS327
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/04/2010 03:42 PM
And I have a question for the forum; "If the FY2011 Budget had been proposed by a Republican President John McCain, would there have been as much resistance to it?"
I believe so, since I don't believe the "sides" of this are Democrat / Republican.


I was wondering since this issue, like the Health Care seemed to be bitterly partisan.

But as you say, now that I recall, the Constellation Program enjoyed bipartisan support.
It was endorsed by some Democrats and Republicans, but then the President and Congress didn't necessarily appropriate all the money authorized.  Broader issues and/or broader partisan politics had more influence on what happened -- like with FY 2007, which was funded only on a continuing resolution basis.  The authorizing (sub)committees we saw last week, with largely the same bipartisan members, have made the argument for multiple years that NASA had too much on its plate with too little money to do it -- but in the end Congresses (some Republican, some Democrat) and Presidents (some Democrat, some Republican) as a whole have not changed appropriations.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 03:43 PM
CLB22
This is your opinion. However the "claim for hlv by 2020" is very realistic and achievable. This is accomplished by using the SDHLV which can be ready by then or sooner. There are MANY facts to back that up, and if you want to question them please consult the DIRECT team who actually has done the research on ALL of this stuff.

What is my opinion? The numbers I posted above? Numbers don't lie. If you don't add up to 10bn over the next 5 years, you will have to take 10bn for Shuttle extension from somewhere. And if you don't add even more, you will have to take from other line-items for HLV development. It's simple math.

Again, what claim of HLV by 2020 are you referring to. I asked Chris the same question, I haven't talked about HLV by 2020 or 2030 or at any other time on this thread. Above I said "HLV in 8 years" which would be 2018 as mentioned in the bill as the first possible BEO date.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 03:44 PM
And I have a question for the forum; "If the FY2011 Budget had been proposed by a Republican President John McCain, would there have been as much resistance to it?"
I believe so, since I don't believe the "sides" of this are Democrat / Republican.


I was wondering since this issue, like the Health Care seemed to be bitterly partisan.

But as you say, now that I recall, the Constellation Program enjoyed bipartisan support.

It's more a President versus Congress issue. I think that the Democrats are letting the Republicans do all of the complaining because the President is a Democrat. But if you listen to Nelson and other Democrats, they are also not to happy with the President's NASA plan. They want to "perfect it"...
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/04/2010 03:46 PM
I think the enthusiasm for the February proposal is based on the way it essentially cleared the field for commercial crew, by shutting down STS

STS was shut down by a decision of President George W. Bush in January 2004.



And the environment of today is 100% different and you know it. 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: butters on 03/04/2010 03:49 PM
If Shuttle is extended to 2015, there is no sense in having any CRS flights before then (except maybe demos), since Shuttle would provide ISS with more than enough upmass at two flights per year.

I think this bill substantially overestimates the launch manifest that can be supported by the ISS.  And that's all this bill seems to be: an attempt to use the ISS as justification for simultaneously funding everybody's favorite launch programs.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 03:53 PM
If Shuttle is extended to 2015, there is no sense in having any CRS flights before then (except maybe demos), since Shuttle would provide ISS with more than enough upmass at two flights per year.

I think this bill substantially overestimates the launch manifest that can be supported by the ISS.  And that's all this bill seems to be: an attempt to use the ISS as justification for simultaneously funding everybody's favorite launch programs.
Agreed. Unfortunately this bill is "jobs first, NASA, exploration and taxpayer money later".
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 03:53 PM
There is plans for a NASA 2010 Authorization bill. Whether it is this bill or not makes no difference. They could still take some elements of this bill and incorporate it in a 2010 NASA Authorization Bill. Senator Nelson mentionned that Congress would be tweeking the NASA FY2011 budget.
The word Mr. Nelson used was “perfect”.  Please try to use the words an elected pol uses.  I know this seems snarkish, and for that I do apologize, but it is important that we use the words they do for contextual reasons.

You are right he used the word "perfect" it. I was going from memory. But I wouldn't take his word too literally either. He simply meant they would be changing it. The more important question is whether he supports this new bill.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/04/2010 03:56 PM
It's more a President versus Congress issue. I think that the Democrats are letting the Republicans do all of the complaining because the President is a Democrat. But if you listen to Nelson and other Democrats, they are also not to happy with the President's NASA plan.
Disagree; the argument about broadly-scoped appropriations, the lack of a line-item veto, and the tiny relative size of NASA's budget means that Presidents aren't going to veto a CJS or an even larger appropriations bill on the basis of NASA's numbers.

In Congress, setting aside variables like gerrymandering, for example if you look at the districts where KSC or JSC are located, they change between D and R; whichever party they belong to, those representatives have supported minimizing "The Gap" and/or extending Shuttle.  You also have representatives like Ralph Hall, a longtime Texas Democrat who changed parties recently.  His support for NASA is arguably stronger than his party loyalty.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 04:02 PM
I am not sure what you are diagreeing with. This is an authorization bill (not an appropriation bill). Nelson even mentionned that he has rarely seen a time when both appropriators and authorizing people in Congress both agree that they don't like the new NASA FY2011 Budget plan.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: jarmumd on 03/04/2010 04:06 PM
If Shuttle is extended to 2015, there is no sense in having any CRS flights before then (except maybe demos), since Shuttle would provide ISS with more than enough upmass at two flights per year.

I think this bill substantially overestimates the launch manifest that can be supported by the ISS.  And that's all this bill seems to be: an attempt to use the ISS as justification for simultaneously funding everybody's favorite launch programs.
Agreed. Unfortunately this bill is "jobs first, NASA, exploration and taxpayer money later".

Without any sarcasm intended, the only solution then would be to put ISS into the drink.  I mean what would have happened after 2016-2020?  Where would commercial go then?  Supplying crew to a moon mission? NEO? Mars?  The only one we can do with any certainty is the moon (as far as developing things like rad shielding et al).  Without a clearly defined mission, there is no point for any of this existing - may save a lot more money to just cut our losses, put ISS in the ocean and do science/exploration one Atlas at a time until we find something the taxpayers will fund to explore...
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/04/2010 04:08 PM
If Shuttle is extended to 2015, there is no sense in having any CRS flights before then (except maybe demos), since Shuttle would provide ISS with more than enough upmass at two flights per year.

I think this bill substantially overestimates the launch manifest that can be supported by the ISS.  And that's all this bill seems to be: an attempt to use the ISS as justification for simultaneously funding everybody's favorite launch programs.

Well that's partially true.

1) There are only certain quantities of items available for launch.
2) You don't need them all at once.
3) You have limited space on ISS.

But what shuttle does provide is DOWNMASS capability. It also provides a continuous 'back-up' if you will if CRS doesn't come through in time. It can also launch the heavy stuff. We still have to wait and see what NASA comes back with on ORUs available on the ground. I think we're going to be surprised what got left off the manifests due to launch/time constraints. We also have an opportunity to manufacture a new blanket box for solar panels: one of our weakest links. We can also launch the demonstrator VASIMR to ISS in the PLB on a later flight. Save the near launches for more logistics.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/04/2010 04:09 PM
If Shuttle is extended to 2015, there is no sense in having any CRS flights before then (except maybe demos), since Shuttle would provide ISS with more than enough upmass at two flights per year.

I think this bill substantially overestimates the launch manifest that can be supported by the ISS.  And that's all this bill seems to be: an attempt to use the ISS as justification for simultaneously funding everybody's favorite launch programs.
Agreed. Unfortunately this bill is "jobs first, NASA, exploration and taxpayer money later".

That's not true.  So ISS is going to fine?  When will the CRS flight be?  Surely you can tell us.  Right?  After all, they're just about a year or so behind schedule now....

If ISS fails, so does everything else, technically, politically and economically so quit with the over-dramatic subjective statements.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/04/2010 04:10 PM
I am not sure what you are diagreeing with. This is an authorization bill (not an appropriation bill). Nelson even mentionned that he has rarely seen a time when both appropriators and authorizing people in Congress both agree that they don't like the new plan.
I'm disagreeing with the idea that the factions are Democrat vs. Republican or Executive vs. Legislative.  With respect to authorization vs. appropriations, they might not like the Administration's plan, but do you think there might be some disagreement between them about the Shuttle Extension money authorized in this bill -- since it's on top of NASA's top line?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/04/2010 04:10 PM

I posted earlier about the path the Hutchinson bill must follow to become law. I would appreciate it greatly if anyone who posts about the wonders of this draft bill would look at the path it must take before assuming the Hutchinson bill has more than a one percent chance of enactment.

A similar argument could be made for the chances of the current forward plan being approved by Congress. There has to be a compromise, there will be a compromise, and you seem to be using the "this Bill, word for word, won't get through". Probably not, but that's not the purpose. The purpose is to create a basis of argument for Congress to find that middle ground.

To that purpose, this Bill is excellent.

Agreed. This was a very well thought out Bill.

(funny how much of it is similar to my letter writing campaign...hehe)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: bad_astra on 03/04/2010 04:10 PM
Politics is the art of compromise. This bill might come closest to satisfying all side of the issue, with the exception of the Alabamans.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/04/2010 04:13 PM
What you said that I responded to.  Sorry for not using the "reply with quote" function up there:

...The new bill seems to pull the rug out from under the NewSpace competitors because extending STS to 2015 palliates the "gap crisis," and makes CCDEV seems less urgent. Reestablishing any or all components of CxP would simply put everyone back where they were last year....

Then what I said:

...NewSpace has got plenty to do, and plenty of money to make.  Their sense of urgency, I think, will continue under the proposed bill...

Then what you said:

That's not strictly accurate. SpaceX and OSC have plenty to do, and money to make if they succeed.  But if STS is continued to 2015, where's the urgency for space, new or old? ...

I'm a mite confused about the clarification you're trying to make.  I don't think that the "urgency" changes all that much.  NewSpace will pretty much still be motivated to supply ISS, although if disaster strikes them, I don't know.  I guess I'm "assuming" that they'll succeed.  And if the shuttle keeps going, again with the caveat against disaster, I'm thinking there will be new missions beyond the current manifest which could possibly support lunar or martian or NEO missions.

I think if commercial succeeds, then that could liberate the shuttle for new work, again, under the assumption we would use what we have.  That's why I don't get the debate going on as if the shuttle, if extended, could only be used for resupply, thus negating commercial.

Chris' is a salient question:  How fast would this bill, if enacted, would the processes happen?  And what would those new missions be, if the shuttle were relieved of cargo flights to the ISS?

There is substantial debate, as pointed out in the article, about what "re-certification" means.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 04:19 PM
I am not sure what you are diagreeing with. This is an authorization bill (not an appropriation bill). Nelson even mentionned that he has rarely seen a time when both appropriators and authorizing people in Congress both agree that they don't like the new plan.
I'm disagreeing with the idea that the factions are Democrat vs. Republican or Executive vs. Legislative.  With respect to authorization vs. appropriations, they might not like the Administration's plan, but do you think there might be some disagreement between them about the Shuttle Extension money authorized in this bill -- since it's on top of NASA's top line?

The Shuttle extension is more a question of whether there is money for it. The appropriators are left with the tough choice of what not to fund. I don't think anybody likes the gap but they have to decide whether to appropriate an extra $2B per year to prevent the gap from happenning. My personal view is that the extra $2B will not be appropriated. The appropriators will be able to simply say that they don't have the money for it and that the President didn't ask for this increase anyways. But I hope to be wrong on this.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/04/2010 04:20 PM
CLB22
This is your opinion. However the "claim for hlv by 2020" is very realistic and achievable. This is accomplished by using the SDHLV which can be ready by then or sooner. There are MANY facts to back that up, and if you want to question them please consult the DIRECT team who actually has done the research on ALL of this stuff.

What is my opinion? The numbers I posted above? Numbers don't lie. If you don't add up to 10bn over the next 5 years, you will have to take 10bn for Shuttle extension from somewhere. And if you don't add even more, you will have to take from other line-items for HLV development. It's simple math.

Again, what claim of HLV by 2020 are you referring to. I asked Chris the same question, I haven't talked about HLV by 2020 or 2030 or at any other time on this thread. Above I said "HLV in 8 years" which would be 2018 as mentioned in the bill as the first possible BEO date.

Ok debate time. First off: It is confirmed that Bolden does not APPEAR to support the fy 2011 budget. This is evident because he has ALREADY started drawing up a "plan b" budget designed to line up with the congress proposal. This, in conjunction with previous "bolden HLV study" which concluded that a DIRECT jupiter style configuration was a good option further proves that he, personally, does not like the new bill. But he was given orders and he will follow orders, until someone else in power tells him different, which is what congress is doing. This also adds fuel to the fire the Garver, and some other unamed individuals, were behind fy 2011 to begin with but that is another story for another day.

"What is my opinion? The numbers I posted above? Numbers don't lie. If you don't add up to 10bn over the next 5 years, you will have to take 10bn for Shuttle extension from somewhere."

I am not disputing the numbers. I am disputing the claim that ALL tech development and r&d must be zeroed out. That is simply not true. IF however, there was even A SINGLE ares 1 vehicle in this new budget (i.e. ares 1x prime test to satisfy ares guys, followed by jupiter taking over, which of course would not make sense but again, this is based on the ares reference) then you would have to cut all r&d. But if its just SDHLV and orion, you do not have to kill everything. You can at least keep the advandced in space propulsion tech development item. And I think they WILL keep that regardless of whether or not it shows up in this bill.

"Again, what claim of HLV by 2020 are you referring to. I asked Chris the same question, I haven't talked about HLV by 2020 or 2030 or at any other time on this thread. Above I said "HLV in 8 years" which would be 2018 as mentioned in the bill as the first possible BEO date."

You previously stated that HLV by 2020 was not possible. I am disputing that.  You also stated that this plan would not allow NASA to do any meaningful BEO exploration (because you think that an sdhlv would eat all the money for EVERYTHING else rather than just SOME things) and thus would be worse than fy 2011. I am disputing that. Also, if you are saying that because of the costs of the STS extension please remember that there is, or was, an idea being floated to privatize the shuttle. That may become part of this plan later. That idea would provide about 1 billion dollars of savings on a per year basis (estimated) and would further reduce the cost of an SDHLV (jupiter 130/ 246).

Where do I get the claim that you were saying HLV by 2020 was not possible?:

"Anyway, let's dissect the claim of having an HLV ready by 2025 or 2020 or at all. Where does this come from? Well, this wasn't plan until 2005, at least noone was talking about 100mt+ S-HLVs. Before 2005, most people agreed it would not be a sustainable path to base an architecture around large S-HLVs, so architectures were based on 20mt, 50mt and maybe 60-70mt rockets. We need to finally get back to common sense that was available before 2005 and Congress needs to do that too. An HLV sure is important, but it sure doesn't need to be a 100mt to LEO vehicle and an HLV without allocating a lot MORE money to payloads for said HLV is a track towards not doing anything BEO."

:P
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/04/2010 04:26 PM
51D Mascot,

I would be interested to know if you believe that the Shuttle extension money has any chance of being appropriated.

I wonder if this bill has bi-partisan support and if Obama might be tempted to veto it. Was there any imput from the White House on this bill?

Absolutely a possibility of getting the funds, if the NEED is adequately and convincingly demonstrated as being a requirement for the protection of a $100 billion dollar investment in ISS and the need to ensure its sustainability through at least 2020.

There IS bipartisan support, though not completely visible at this stage, except in the group lining up to introduce identical companion legislation in the House. No White House involvement was either sought or offered in developing this bill, as it is seen as an alternative to the White House proposal; in fact, the introduction of the bill itself is seen as providing a potential avenue for establishing the framework for subsequent conversations with the White House at whatever point they deem it is necessary to start talking about a realistic approach to a very clearly unpopular budget proposal.

The irony of this bill is that it includes things that everybody expected to be part of the FY 2011 Budget (especially after the results of the HLV study): an SD-HLV for 2018 (J-2xx) and funding for commercial crew for LEO with a NASA SD rocket as a backup for late 2013 (J-1xx).

Agreed.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 04:41 PM

What is my opinion? The numbers I posted above? Numbers don't lie. If you don't add up to 10bn over the next 5 years, you will have to take 10bn for Shuttle extension from somewhere. And if you don't add even more, you will have to take from other line-items for HLV development. It's simple math.

Again, what claim of HLV by 2020 are you referring to. I asked Chris the same question, I haven't talked about HLV by 2020 or 2030 or at any other time on this thread. Above I said "HLV in 8 years" which would be 2018 as mentioned in the bill as the first possible BEO date.

Thought I had already answered, but I must have been distracted ;) I'm going to sound a bit rowdy here, but that's just me - as I think you know now, no offense is intended, and I do enjoy your counter views (and welcome them for the purpose of debate).

So where do we start. Ok, I understand you've not talked HLV in 2030, but that's the current Bolden plan, as noted at the KSC presser he held. Florida Today pressed him on it, he repeated it, quote "2030s" - even if that's the latter end of the estimate - as much as he doesn't even seem to know yet.

Regardless, that's a quoted fact and we need to compare the proposal with the Bill, because NASA gets 18-19 billion dollars a year, and to say NASA won't be building another launch vehicle for about 20 years is shockingly bad.

The HLV at least 10 years sooner is based on an inline SD HLV, which won the trade study over RP-1, Sidemount, as the main alternative to Ares V (which loses out via no Ares I - as much as commonality was lost during dev).

I won't even claim to know costs, because no one fully knows - not me and not you - and I highly doubt the Direct guys do either for the Inline, other than maybe estimates. However, what I can claim is via those involved in the HLV study Bolden himself called for and via SSP sources who had involvement (some of whom I know personally). And it's worth noting that there was a heavy dose of objectivity placed into the study.

Based on what I've been told (so yes, it's open for debate regardless) SD HLV wins on cost and thus schedule, combined with SD hardware transition. It wins on workforce skillset, it wins on reliability due to commonality, it wins on infrastructure and it gets the payload where it needs to be. People cite "six months to Mars, need game changing propulsion" - but we're not going to Mars first, or we shouldn't be, based on what we need to learn about BEO (ref: Bolden and others) - see Flexible Path options NASA themselves prefer - such as L1/L2 telescopes:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/manned-mission-to-construct-huge-geo-and-deep-space-telescopes-proposed/

What I find confusing is when some people think the Bolden HLV plan is 'better' when no one even knows what the hell the plan is other than it'll be "game changing" and you aren't going to see any time soon as NASA will be busy "inspiring kids" with their Earth Monitoring studies (element of sarcasm, I know).

Also, I wouldn't ignore the Augustine Committee's confirmed reference to the ONLY gap reducing effort comes via Shuttle Extension to SD HLV, which had a peer review by the Aerospace Corp - thus they'll know more about this path than me, you and pretty everyone else on this thread combined.

In summary, we have several priorities, and the main one is the present, not least, but not soley, due to 10,000s of thousands of people about to lose their jobs - and more importantly the skillset of brilliant engineers, who I may feel a little bit more passionately about because a) I know some of them b) every day I'm astonished with how the find problems, create solutions, it's really stunning and I've personally never seen anything close to how good they are, even at a military level - and people are happy they are looking at jobs in on production lines in the motor industry? Sorry, but I think that is tantermount to a betrayal.

Over-ridding is the loss of the hardware. I wonder if people aren't allowing the loss of shuttle it sink in. We all know it's an amazing vehicle, but for more reasons that may be obvious. We ARE exploring every damn time we launch a mission. Forget LEO only, we're just finishing the construction of a huge Space Station, in space! Even forget about the daft move of finishing ISS and then forgetting to support it under the extension to 2020, you need to examine the ins and outs of a shuttle mission, a human mission in space on a very complicated vehicle - which in turn allows us to learn how to do it. I won't go on about that, but some people are stuck in the "oh, shuttle mission to the ISS, been there, done that" mode.

The main point is, like it or not, what we do now will have implications on the future. The ONLY solution to NOW, is to extend the shuttle and transition to a commonality HLV, in tandem with COTS/CRS to transition from upmass to ISS first, prove reliability, and take over ISS crew transport within a year, or two, of shuttle retirement. That still gets NASA out of the LEO business, but with all the benefits of a smooth transition.

If we need to cut other things from the budget to make it affordable, cut it, cut the damn lot, because we can't pin our hopes on a vehicle that is so far away, it'll probably never get built due to changing governments and numerous changes to the NASA admin over the years.

Anyway, not claiming to be "right" but that's my opinion on it.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/04/2010 04:41 PM
The clearly defined goal is to expand mankind's influence throughout the cosmos. For those who say "R&D is worthless" (it's a minority here), the complete opposite is true. If we don't have R&D, the situation will never improve. We will never colonize the solar system, not in 50 years, not in 300 years, if we don't have the tools to do it sustainably! I am in favor of any bill which pushes commercial space and advanced R&D as much as Obama's bill.

For those who say that anything beyond 2020 is too far out to be a real goal, I completely agree. I am in favor of short-term exploration, but not if it jeopardizes a future where mankind is a spacefaring race. Unfortunately, it seems like our lawmakers (the most vocal ones, at least) seem to care nothing about either real exploration or enabling us to become a truly interplanetary species. If they did, they would stop pushing Ares I. I am afraid that all this talk that those lawmakers will "come around" and stop supporting Ares I is wishful thinking. We need real "spaceships," more like the Apollo lunar module than the Apollo capsule. Heck, even the ISS is close to an interplanetary spacecraft (or, at least some of the modules like Zvevda, etc).

Nowhere in the proposed "working draft" do the words "Altair" or "lander" occur. Without those, we're not going back to the surface of Mars or the Moon, we'll be stuck in LEO. Not that Obama's budget funds those things, but it DOES fund things like flagship missions developing the exact technologies needed for interplanetary spacecraft. Straight from the budget: flight demonstrations for technologies such as: "in situ resource utilization, aero capture, large mass entry descent and landing, highly efficient in-space propulsion, precision landing and hazard avoidance, cryogenics storage and transfer, lightweight/inflatable modules, and others." Technically, even the Moon is in Earth orbit.

Politicians like to paint the picture in black and white, to draw people to their side by saying those on the opposite side "hate America." I'm sick of it. They don't seem to be concerned about the future, other than their own political futures. *Sigh* Well, maybe they'll come around anyway.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/04/2010 04:44 PM
I am not sure what you are diagreeing with. This is an authorization bill (not an appropriation bill). Nelson even mentionned that he has rarely seen a time when both appropriators and authorizing people in Congress both agree that they don't like the new plan.
I'm disagreeing with the idea that the factions are Democrat vs. Republican or Executive vs. Legislative.  With respect to authorization vs. appropriations, they might not like the Administration's plan, but do you think there might be some disagreement between them about the Shuttle Extension money authorized in this bill -- since it's on top of NASA's top line?

The Shuttle extension is more a question of whether there is money for it. The appropriators are left with the tough choice of what not to fund. I don't think anybody likes the gap but they have to decide whether to appropriate an extra $2B per year to prevent the gap from happenning. My personal view is that the extra $2B will not be appropriated. The appropriators will be able to simply say that they don't have the money for it and that the President didn't ask for this increase anyways. But I hope to be wrong on this.
I agree that the fight is more along these lines and this is one of the dilemmas.  "The Gap" is a consideration, but the argument emphasized for Shuttle Extension in the release with this bill is more about ensuring ISS is adequately supplied and maintained in the near-term until the CRS providers are flying.  One of the things that remains to be seen is how effective the lobbying effort is with the appropriators in both chambers.  As you say, it's a tough choice looking at the big picture -- the appropriations might want to fund Shuttle for longer, but they may decide they can't afford it.  (The old saw about good intentions.)  Or they may say that Shuttle has to be funded by taking money away from something else in this proposal.  (That's happened repeatedly in the past.)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: JSC Phil on 03/04/2010 04:48 PM

What is my opinion? The numbers I posted above? Numbers don't lie. If you don't add up to 10bn over the next 5 years, you will have to take 10bn for Shuttle extension from somewhere. And if you don't add even more, you will have to take from other line-items for HLV development. It's simple math.

Again, what claim of HLV by 2020 are you referring to. I asked Chris the same question, I haven't talked about HLV by 2020 or 2030 or at any other time on this thread. Above I said "HLV in 8 years" which would be 2018 as mentioned in the bill as the first possible BEO date.

Thought I had already answered, but I must have been distracted ;) I'm going to sound a bit rowdy here, but that's just me - as I think you know now, no offense is intended, and I do enjoy your counter views (and welcome them for the purpose of debate).

So where do we start. Ok, I understand you've not talked HLV in 2030, but that's the current Bolden plan, as noted at the KSC presser he held. Florida Today pressed him on it, he repeated it, quote "2030s" - even if that's the latter end of the estimate - as much as he doesn't even seem to know yet.

Regardless, that's a quoted fact and we need to compare the proposal with the Bill, because NASA gets 18-19 billion dollars a year, and to say NASA won't be building another launch vehicle for about 20 years is shockingly bad.

The HLV at least 10 years sooner is based on an inline SD HLV, which won the trade study over RP-1, Sidemount, as the main alternative to Ares V (which loses out via no Ares I - as much as commonality was lost during dev).

I won't even claim to know costs, because no one fully knows - not me and not you - and I highly doubt the Direct guys do either for the Inline, other than maybe estimates. However, what I can claim is via those involved in the HLV study Bolden himself called for and via SSP sources who had involvement (some of whom I know personally). And it's worth noting that there was a heavy dose of objectivity placed into the study.

Based on what I've been told (so yes, it's open for debate regardless) SD HLV wins on cost and thus schedule, combined with SD hardware transition. It wins on workforce skillset, it wins on reliability due to commonality, it wins on infrastructure and it gets the payload where it needs to be. People cite "six months to Mars, need game changing propulsion" - but we're not going to Mars first, or we shouldn't be, based on what we need to learn about BEO (ref: Bolden and others) - see Flexible Path options NASA themselves prefer - such as L1/L2 telescopes:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/manned-mission-to-construct-huge-geo-and-deep-space-telescopes-proposed/

What I find confusing is when some people think the Bolden HLV plan is 'better' when no one even knows what the hell the plan is other than it'll be "game changing" and you aren't going to see any time soon as NASA will be busy "inspiring kids" with their Earth Monitoring studies (element of sarcasm, I know).

Also, I wouldn't ignore the Augustine Committee's confirmed reference to the ONLY gap reducing effort comes via Shuttle Extension to SD HLV, which had a peer review by the Aerospace Corp - thus they'll know more about this path than me, you and pretty everyone else on this thread combined.

In summary, we have several priorities, and the main one is the present, not least, but not soley, due to 10,000s of thousands of people about to lose their jobs - and more importantly the skillset of brilliant engineers, who I may feel a little bit more passionately about because a) I know some of them b) every day I'm astonished with how the find problems, create solutions, it's really stunning and I've personally never seen anything close to how good they are, even at a military level - and people are happy they are looking at jobs in on production lines in the motor industry? Sorry, but I think that is tantermount to a betrayal.

Over-ridding is the loss of the hardware. I wonder if people aren't allowing the loss of shuttle it sink in. We all know it's an amazing vehicle, but for more reasons that may be obvious. We ARE exploring every damn time we launch a mission. Forget LEO only, we're just finishing the construction of a huge Space Station, in space! Even forget about the daft move of finishing ISS and then forgetting to support it under the extension to 2020, you need to examine the ins and outs of a shuttle mission, a human mission in space on a very complicated vehicle - which in turn allows us to learn how to do it. I won't go on about that, but some people are stuck in the "oh, shuttle mission to the ISS, been there, done that" mode.

The main point is, like it or not, what we do now will have implications on the future. The ONLY solution to NOW, is to extend the shuttle and transition to a commonality HLV, in tandem with COTS/CRS to transition from upmass to ISS first, prove reliability, and take over ISS crew transport within a year, or two, of shuttle retirement. That still gets NASA out of the LEO business, but with all the benefits of a smooth transition.

If we need to cut other things from the budget to make it affordable, cut it, cut the damn lot, because we can't pin our hopes on a vehicle that is so far away, it'll probably never get built due to changing governments and numerous changes to the NASA admin over the years.

Anyway, not claiming to be "right" but that's my opinion on it.

Very well said!
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: simpl simon on 03/04/2010 04:58 PM
I can’t help noticing that, apart from the ISS which of course takes centre stage in this bill, and is the keystone of current international space programs, the bill makes no reference to international cooperation for space exploration. The term “international cooperation” does not appear at all (please correct me if I am wrong).

NASA’s FY2011 budget request quite openly refers to international cooperation as a way of achieving the US’s own goals. It almost makes space an element of foreign policy.

It may be recalled that H.R.6063, NASA Authorization Act of 2008, said, amongst other things:

SEC. 401. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that the President of the United States should invite America's friends and allies to participate in a long-term international initiative under the leadership of the United States to expand human and robotic presence into the solar system, including the exploration and utilization of the Moon, near Earth asteroids, Lagrangian points, and eventually Mars and its moons, among other exploration and utilization goals. When appropriate, the United States should lead confidence building measures that advance the long-term initiative for international cooperation.

Does S 3068 reflect a conscious decision to return to a US space exploration program, rather than a US-led international space exploration?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Davie OPF on 03/04/2010 05:01 PM


Thought I had already answered, but I must have been distracted ;) I'm going to sound a bit rowdy here, but that's just me - as I think you know now, no offense is intended, and I do enjoy your counter views (and welcome them for the purpose of debate).

So where do we start. Ok, I understand you've not talked HLV in 2030, but that's the current Bolden plan, as noted at the KSC presser he held. Florida Today pressed him on it, he repeated it, quote "2030s" - even if that's the latter end of the estimate - as much as he doesn't even seem to know yet.

Regardless, that's a quoted fact and we need to compare the proposal with the Bill, because NASA gets 18-19 billion dollars a year, and to say NASA won't be building another launch vehicle for about 20 years is shockingly bad.

The HLV at least 10 years sooner is based on an inline SD HLV, which won the trade study over RP-1, Sidemount, as the main alternative to Ares V (which loses out via no Ares I - as much as commonality was lost during dev).

I won't even claim to know costs, because no one fully knows - not me and not you - and I highly doubt the Direct guys do either for the Inline, other than maybe estimates. However, what I can claim is via those involved in the HLV study Bolden himself called for and via SSP sources who had involvement (some of whom I know personally). And it's worth noting that there was a heavy dose of objectivity placed into the study.

Based on what I've been told (so yes, it's open for debate regardless) SD HLV wins on cost and thus schedule, combined with SD hardware transition. It wins on workforce skillset, it wins on reliability due to commonality, it wins on infrastructure and it gets the payload where it needs to be. People cite "six months to Mars, need game changing propulsion" - but we're not going to Mars first, or we shouldn't be, based on what we need to learn about BEO (ref: Bolden and others) - see Flexible Path options NASA themselves prefer - such as L1/L2 telescopes:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/manned-mission-to-construct-huge-geo-and-deep-space-telescopes-proposed/

What I find confusing is when some people think the Bolden HLV plan is 'better' when no one even knows what the hell the plan is other than it'll be "game changing" and you aren't going to see any time soon as NASA will be busy "inspiring kids" with their Earth Monitoring studies (element of sarcasm, I know).

Also, I wouldn't ignore the Augustine Committee's confirmed reference to the ONLY gap reducing effort comes via Shuttle Extension to SD HLV, which had a peer review by the Aerospace Corp - thus they'll know more about this path than me, you and pretty everyone else on this thread combined.

In summary, we have several priorities, and the main one is the present, not least, but not soley, due to 10,000s of thousands of people about to lose their jobs - and more importantly the skillset of brilliant engineers, who I may feel a little bit more passionately about because a) I know some of them b) every day I'm astonished with how the find problems, create solutions, it's really stunning and I've personally never seen anything close to how good they are, even at a military level - and people are happy they are looking at jobs in on production lines in the motor industry? Sorry, but I think that is tantermount to a betrayal.

Over-ridding is the loss of the hardware. I wonder if people aren't allowing the loss of shuttle it sink in. We all know it's an amazing vehicle, but for more reasons that may be obvious. We ARE exploring every damn time we launch a mission. Forget LEO only, we're just finishing the construction of a huge Space Station, in space! Even forget about the daft move of finishing ISS and then forgetting to support it under the extension to 2020, you need to examine the ins and outs of a shuttle mission, a human mission in space on a very complicated vehicle - which in turn allows us to learn how to do it. I won't go on about that, but some people are stuck in the "oh, shuttle mission to the ISS, been there, done that" mode.

The main point is, like it or not, what we do now will have implications on the future. The ONLY solution to NOW, is to extend the shuttle and transition to a commonality HLV, in tandem with COTS/CRS to transition from upmass to ISS first, prove reliability, and take over ISS crew transport within a year, or two, of shuttle retirement. That still gets NASA out of the LEO business, but with all the benefits of a smooth transition.

If we need to cut other things from the budget to make it affordable, cut it, cut the damn lot, because we can't pin our hopes on a vehicle that is so far away, it'll probably never get built due to changing governments and numerous changes to the NASA admin over the years.

Anyway, not claiming to be "right" but that's my opinion on it.


Agree with everything there!!
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: gladiator1332 on 03/04/2010 05:15 PM
I think now the most important thing is whether congress can get this thing approved in enough time. The American political system isn't quick, and as many have said before, time is running out.

Time is running out on Shuttle...but before any change can be made to constellation, congress must approve. Therefore, that could be the main reason we see Ares I and Constellation being mentioned in this bill.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mr_magoo on 03/04/2010 05:16 PM
The clearly defined goal is to expand mankind's influence throughout the cosmos. For those who say "R&D is worthless" (it's a minority here), the complete opposite is true. If we don't have R&D, the situation will never improve. We will never colonize the solar system, not in 50 years, not in 300 years, if we don't have the tools to do it sustainably! I am in favor of any bill which pushes commercial space and advanced R&D as much as Obama's bill.

For those who say that anything beyond 2020 is too far out to be a real goal, I completely agree. I am in favor of short-term exploration, but not if it jeopardizes a future where mankind is a spacefaring race. Unfortunately, it seems like our lawmakers (the most vocal ones, at least) seem to care nothing about either real exploration or enabling us to become a truly interplanetary species. If they did, they would stop pushing Ares I. I am afraid that all this talk that those lawmakers will "come around" and stop supporting Ares I is wishful thinking. We need real "spaceships," more like the Apollo lunar module than the Apollo capsule. Heck, even the ISS is close to an interplanetary spacecraft (or, at least some of the modules like Zvevda, etc).

Nowhere in the proposed "working draft" do the words "Altair" or "lander" occur. Without those, we're not going back to the surface of Mars or the Moon, we'll be stuck in LEO. Not that Obama's budget funds those things, but it DOES fund things like flagship missions developing the exact technologies needed for interplanetary spacecraft. Straight from the budget: flight demonstrations for technologies such as: "in situ resource utilization, aero capture, large mass entry descent and landing, highly efficient in-space propulsion, precision landing and hazard avoidance, cryogenics storage and transfer, lightweight/inflatable modules, and others." Technically, even the Moon is in Earth orbit.

Politicians like to paint the picture in black and white, to draw people to their side by saying those on the opposite side "hate America." I'm sick of it. They don't seem to be concerned about the future, other than their own political futures. *Sigh* Well, maybe they'll come around anyway.

Yup, I agree.

R&D is the red headed stepchild of NASA.  It may not even survive a month this time but there is no real exploration without it, as the Augustine Report said:

Quote from: Augustine Report
While the specific technologies to address needed capabilities
can and will be debated, if the United States wishes to
conduct more and more capable missions in the future with
nearly constant budgets, it is essential to develop and bring
to flight readiness the technologies required. This will not
happen without a sustained plan in which needed capabilities
are identified, multiple competing technologies to provide
that capability funded, and the most mature of them
demonstrated in flight so that exploration architectures can
then depend on them.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 05:17 PM
but before any change can be made to constellation, congress must approve.

Which is also interesting as we've seen the memos on L2 where they are actively shutting down the programs. Will have to write those up into an article during the next CxP update.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/04/2010 05:22 PM
Which is also interesting as we've seen the memos on L2 where they are actively shutting down the programs. Will have to write those up into an article during the next CxP update.

Shutting down CxP? Which parts? Ares V and Altair?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: pdxmike on 03/04/2010 05:24 PM
Looks like Garver is absolutely ruling out shuttle extension:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/03/04/garver-sorry-shuttle-supporters-its-too-late/
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 05:26 PM
It's hard to disagree with anything specific Chris said in his post. But the problem with such a course is that you can't afford everything. You can't afford funding Shuttle, SD-HLV, commercial crew and BEO R&D all at the same time. So tough choices have to be made. Stopping Shuttle in 2010 is a tough choice. Postponing the HLV to 2025-2030 is also a tough choice. Privatizing NASA's rocket launchers and capsules is also a tough choice. Funding both SD-HLV and Shuttle extension is an easier choice but it requires an extra $2B that will likely not be available and it also takes money away from BEO R&D.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 05:30 PM
Which is also interesting as we've seen the memos on L2 where they are actively shutting down the programs. Will have to write those up into an article during the next CxP update.

Shutting down CxP? Which parts? Ares V and Altair?

Ares and Orion.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/04/2010 05:32 PM
Huh, I was under the impression they were going to keep Ares I and Orion. Looking forward to the article Chris.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: briguy700 on 03/04/2010 05:32 PM
Looks like Garver is absolutely ruling out shuttle extension:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/03/04/garver-sorry-shuttle-supporters-its-too-late/


of course she is......it goes against HER "plan".....
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 05:35 PM

What is my opinion? The numbers I posted above? Numbers don't lie. If you don't add up to 10bn over the next 5 years, you will have to take 10bn for Shuttle extension from somewhere. And if you don't add even more, you will have to take from other line-items for HLV development. It's simple math.

Again, what claim of HLV by 2020 are you referring to. I asked Chris the same question, I haven't talked about HLV by 2020 or 2030 or at any other time on this thread. Above I said "HLV in 8 years" which would be 2018 as mentioned in the bill as the first possible BEO date.

Thought I had already answered, but I must have been distracted ;) I'm going to sound a bit rowdy here, but that's just me - as I think you know now, no offense is intended, and I do enjoy your counter views (and welcome them for the purpose of debate).

So where do we start. Ok, I understand you've not talked HLV in 2030, but that's the current Bolden plan, as noted at the KSC presser he held. Florida Today pressed him on it, he repeated it, quote "2030s" - even if that's the latter end of the estimate - as much as he doesn't even seem to know yet.

Regardless, that's a quoted fact and we need to compare the proposal with the Bill, because NASA gets 18-19 billion dollars a year, and to say NASA won't be building another launch vehicle for about 20 years is shockingly bad.

The HLV at least 10 years sooner is based on an inline SD HLV, which won the trade study over RP-1, Sidemount, as the main alternative to Ares V (which loses out via no Ares I - as much as commonality was lost during dev).

I won't even claim to know costs, because no one fully knows - not me and not you - and I highly doubt the Direct guys do either for the Inline, other than maybe estimates. However, what I can claim is via those involved in the HLV study Bolden himself called for and via SSP sources who had involvement (some of whom I know personally). And it's worth noting that there was a heavy dose of objectivity placed into the study.

Based on what I've been told (so yes, it's open for debate regardless) SD HLV wins on cost and thus schedule, combined with SD hardware transition. It wins on workforce skillset, it wins on reliability due to commonality, it wins on infrastructure and it gets the payload where it needs to be. People cite "six months to Mars, need game changing propulsion" - but we're not going to Mars first, or we shouldn't be, based on what we need to learn about BEO (ref: Bolden and others) - see Flexible Path options NASA themselves prefer - such as L1/L2 telescopes:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/manned-mission-to-construct-huge-geo-and-deep-space-telescopes-proposed/

What I find confusing is when some people think the Bolden HLV plan is 'better' when no one even knows what the hell the plan is other than it'll be "game changing" and you aren't going to see any time soon as NASA will be busy "inspiring kids" with their Earth Monitoring studies (element of sarcasm, I know).

Also, I wouldn't ignore the Augustine Committee's confirmed reference to the ONLY gap reducing effort comes via Shuttle Extension to SD HLV, which had a peer review by the Aerospace Corp - thus they'll know more about this path than me, you and pretty everyone else on this thread combined.

In summary, we have several priorities, and the main one is the present, not least, but not soley, due to 10,000s of thousands of people about to lose their jobs - and more importantly the skillset of brilliant engineers, who I may feel a little bit more passionately about because a) I know some of them b) every day I'm astonished with how the find problems, create solutions, it's really stunning and I've personally never seen anything close to how good they are, even at a military level - and people are happy they are looking at jobs in on production lines in the motor industry? Sorry, but I think that is tantermount to a betrayal.

Over-ridding is the loss of the hardware. I wonder if people aren't allowing the loss of shuttle it sink in. We all know it's an amazing vehicle, but for more reasons that may be obvious. We ARE exploring every damn time we launch a mission. Forget LEO only, we're just finishing the construction of a huge Space Station, in space! Even forget about the daft move of finishing ISS and then forgetting to support it under the extension to 2020, you need to examine the ins and outs of a shuttle mission, a human mission in space on a very complicated vehicle - which in turn allows us to learn how to do it. I won't go on about that, but some people are stuck in the "oh, shuttle mission to the ISS, been there, done that" mode.

The main point is, like it or not, what we do now will have implications on the future. The ONLY solution to NOW, is to extend the shuttle and transition to a commonality HLV, in tandem with COTS/CRS to transition from upmass to ISS first, prove reliability, and take over ISS crew transport within a year, or two, of shuttle retirement. That still gets NASA out of the LEO business, but with all the benefits of a smooth transition.

If we need to cut other things from the budget to make it affordable, cut it, cut the damn lot, because we can't pin our hopes on a vehicle that is so far away, it'll probably never get built due to changing governments and numerous changes to the NASA admin over the years.

Anyway, not claiming to be "right" but that's my opinion on it.

Chris, thank you for your detailed answer. And please rest assured, I respect your opinion and the opinions of others. But I still have to disagree on the necessity of HLV development, on the necessity to take over most of the Shuttle workforce to another program (which believe me, won't be possible no matter what Shuttle derived HLV follow on program there would be) and on the necessity to do BEO flights the way we did in the 1960s.

At the end, I just have a fundamentally different vision for NASA than others. I believe it is not necessary to have a 100mt S-HLV, not now, not in 2030. That's one thing. Another thing is that I believe technology development and R&D do have a specific purpose BEYOND just merely supporting old-school chemical propulsion BEO flights and 100mt S-HLVs. I believe they can replace the way Apollo worked in a manner we don't believe it is possible right now. I believe with new technology we can do exploration cheaper, better, more sustainable and quicker than with the old approach of using large rockets and chemical fuels and heavy NASA involvement in designing and operating vehicles. And that is also why I think "inspiring kids" is what the new FY2011 budget will do eventually in a much better way than this proposed amendment bill which will, rest assured, leave us in LEO for the next 20 years due to funding issues and high operational costs for maintaining Orion and a S-HLV down the line. In my opinion in 10-15 years we will have realistic BEO reference missions of a type that folks right now say just can't be baselined because the technology isn't available.

I understand that people like to take the approach of using proven and existing hardware only, that fuel depots, high isp in-space propulsion, SEP, NEP, commercial spacecraft, inflatable habs, semi-automatic robotics, 180mt Mars surface reference missions instead of 1200mt Mars surface reference missions etc. on the critical path are a thing that frightens people. And I admit, this path is the risky one, it's a path that might not get us straight to success down a predefined, totally fletched-out neat path, but for me that this path puts all the above things into the critical path and assumes risk again is the actual exciting thing that NASA will now be doing. And the risk is well worth it, because due to that risk NASA will have a sustained exploration future in contrast to using super large government designed rockets and chemical fuels which IMHO doesn't have a future for deep space missions.

But to really get back on topic, the three question we all need to (objectively!!!) ask ourselves with regard to this new amendment bill are as follows:

1. Is it likely that NASA will get a 3bn+ per year increase in the budget as outlined in the bill in the current economic environment?
2. If not, where will the funds for STS extension come from if not from newly proposed line-items in the FY2011 budget?
3. If NASA does not get the 3bn+ per year budget but just the 1bn-1.5b+ per year budget increase as proposed, where will the funds for STS extension, HLV development and Orion come from if not from technology line-items, commercial crew and robotic precursor programs?

I have given an answer to all these 3 points above and I remain convinced these are sensible answers and that the answer to 1. is absolutely clear and that the answers to 2. and 3. mean that there are no funds whatsoever left for anything aside from STS extension + HLV development + Orion development in the next 5 years (unless we start cutting Science and Aeronautics etc. too) if we go down this road. We will be stuck with the operating costs of an HLV and Orion without being able to use them for anything except LEO flights, which will go hand in hand with the next crisis of NASA with Congress starting finger pointing again.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: DaveJSC on 03/04/2010 05:36 PM
Looks like Garver is absolutely ruling out shuttle extension

of course she is......it goes against HER "plan".....

And Spacepolitics is a commercial fan site. I would question that report as the facts are shaky at best, such as "asking all the shuttle folks" and "two year gap". Completely false. Two words, Augustine Report.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: briguy700 on 03/04/2010 05:41 PM
Looks like Garver is absolutely ruling out shuttle extension

of course she is......it goes against HER "plan".....

And Spacepolitics is a commercial fan site. I would question that report as the facts are shaky at best, such as "asking all the shuttle folks" and "two year gap". Completely false. Two words, Augustine Report.


Good point Dave.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Mark S on 03/04/2010 05:47 PM
Looks like Garver is absolutely ruling out shuttle extension

of course she is......it goes against HER "plan".....

And Spacepolitics is a commercial fan site. I would question that report as the facts are shaky at best, such as "asking all the shuttle folks" and "two year gap". Completely false. Two words, Augustine Report.

And they left off the last part of her quote, "NO one can stop me now... Bwahahahaha...."   :)   Well, at least that's what I would expect her to say.

Mark S.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/04/2010 05:49 PM
Looks like Garver is absolutely ruling out shuttle extension:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/03/04/garver-sorry-shuttle-supporters-its-too-late/

Well, I can absolutely assure you it is not too late.  Therefore, I have to wonder if she is being completely honest about "the first question she asked".

Also, I find it funny about how she in particular keeps saying "when" we communicate to everyone better, there "will be" better support.  So what's stopping her?  Then it appears she goes on to make a vague threat that if this budget is not supported, that future budgets won't be there.

See folks, this is all about shutting this business, this indutry, this Agency down permanently. 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/04/2010 05:50 PM
Looks like Garver is absolutely ruling out shuttle extension

of course she is......it goes against HER "plan".....

And Spacepolitics is a commercial fan site. I would question that report as the facts are shaky at best, such as "asking all the shuttle folks" and "two year gap". Completely false. Two words, Augustine Report.
The report of Garver's answer is likely more accurate than the answer itself.  (There may have been other reporters at the Women in Aerospace breakfast (http://www.womeninaerospace.org/events/current/40.html).)  The question is which politicians are going to challenge her assertions.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/04/2010 05:56 PM
If Bolden approves a compromise (which I think is what he's planning to do) what's Garver going to do about it? She may badmouth the shuttle all she wants, but unless I misunderstood something Bolden is the administrator.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: William Barton on 03/04/2010 05:57 PM
What you said that I responded to.  Sorry for not using the "reply with quote" function up there:

...The new bill seems to pull the rug out from under the NewSpace competitors because extending STS to 2015 palliates the "gap crisis," and makes CCDEV seems less urgent. Reestablishing any or all components of CxP would simply put everyone back where they were last year....

Then what I said:

...NewSpace has got plenty to do, and plenty of money to make.  Their sense of urgency, I think, will continue under the proposed bill...

Then what you said:

That's not strictly accurate. SpaceX and OSC have plenty to do, and money to make if they succeed.  But if STS is continued to 2015, where's the urgency for space, new or old? ...

I'm a mite confused about the clarification you're trying to make.  I don't think that the "urgency" changes all that much.  NewSpace will pretty much still be motivated to supply ISS, although if disaster strikes them, I don't know.  I guess I'm "assuming" that they'll succeed.  And if the shuttle keeps going, again with the caveat against disaster, I'm thinking there will be new missions beyond the current manifest which could possibly support lunar or martian or NEO missions.

I think if commercial succeeds, then that could liberate the shuttle for new work, again, under the assumption we would use what we have.  That's why I don't get the debate going on as if the shuttle, if extended, could only be used for resupply, thus negating commercial.

Chris' is a salient question:  How fast would this bill, if enacted, would the processes happen?  And what would those new missions be, if the shuttle were relieved of cargo flights to the ISS?

There is substantial debate, as pointed out in the article, about what "re-certification" means.

The clarifications: CRS and CCDEV are not the same thing, and SpaceX+OSC doesn't equal NewSpace. As someone else pointed out, if STS continues, CRS is not necessary, and becomes a "nice to have." IF Dragon and Cygnus are up and flying to ISS next year, then CRS will probably continue. However, if STS is still flying, at least to 2015, probably to 2020, where is the urgency for CCDEV (not the same thing as CRS)? And if Dragon and/or Cygnus fail, and STS is still flying, ho-hum, so what? I *want* SpaceX and OSC to succeed. I *want* SD-HLLV (in the form of Jupiter) to fly (which would be aided and abetted by STS extension). I'd like to be proven wrong about Congress not overruling Obama, and will be most happy to come here and eat my metaphorical Stetson. But so far, this whole discussion is Space Cadets on Parade.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: fredm6463 on 03/04/2010 06:04 PM
I think the enthusiasm for the February proposal is based on the way it essentially cleared the field for commercial crew, by shutting down STS

STS was shut down by a decision of President George W. Bush in January 2004.



As much as I am against President Obama's new NASA budget/vision, it was both Houses of Congress, going along with President Bush, in 2004 that directed the Space Shuttle Program be terminated no later than end of fiscal year 2010.

R&D and new technologies are great, but implementing them takes time, money and must provide for cost over runs and delays due to unexpected failure(s).

As for STS, the SSME's combined, from STS-1 to STS-130 (not including test stand SSME firings) have accumulated 55.25 hours of operation.
Has any other liquid rocket engine achieved this statistic?

And the SRB's have worked successfully on all but one (Challenger; with known o-ring problems that should have been corrected immediately before continuing to fly) flight.

STS re-entries have all been successful except for one (Columbia; with known ET debris striking the orbiters, which I am surprised the Roger's Commission investigating the Challenger accident in 1986, never considered a serious threat to the orbiter).

I want STS extension, until we have another method of launching Americans in to space without depending on a foreign nation (i.e., Russia) and full utilization of ISS to 2020 considering the cost of it.

While I welcome beyond LEO exploration, I believe we need newer technologies to accomplish missions to asteroids, Mars, etc.

Many on this forum want BEO ASAP. While that is an admirable stance,
I think even after 30 years of being stuck in LEO, I am not in such a rush to go BEO until technologies exist that will cut down both the travel  time and costs. As I mentioned in a different topic forum, Columbus discovered the New World in 1492. But it was roughly two hundred years before humans emigrated from the Old World to the New. There is plenty of time (but not for forum members who want to see BEO in their lifetime). What I want to know before I leave this Earth is that we have positive proof of intelligent life off the Earth.

In time, if we (the USA and our allies) keep our priorities straight, then working together we can go BEO. But the USA cannot afford to do it alone, unless we cut other government programs to zilch or increase taxes twenty-fold. And I am in favor of neither.


Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 06:05 PM
If Bolden approves a compromise (which I think is what he's planning to do) what's Garver going to do about it? She may badmouth the shuttle all she wants, but unless I misunderstood something Bolden is the administrator.

Shuttle extension isn't a compromise. It requires additionnal funding. If the extra funding isn't there, there will be no extension.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 06:07 PM
Housekeeping notes: NO one is allowed to insult the likes of Gen Bolden or Ms Garver on here, totally unacceptable, will result in deletion. You may disagree with their representations - fine, but call them names - no way. Won't stand for that...and I want people to report posts to the moderators, rather than quoting them.

And the spacepolitics site is about space related politics. The clue is in the URL ;) Jeff runs other sites, like spacetoday.net - and they've been nice enough to include our articles, so be nice, even if it's about something that does not appear to be an accurate report (by way of the comments, not the reporting).

Carry on.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mmeijeri on 03/04/2010 06:08 PM
If Bolden approves a compromise (which I think is what he's planning to do) what's Garver going to do about it? She may badmouth the shuttle all she wants, but unless I misunderstood something Bolden is the administrator.

Good cop, bad cop. Garver does appear to have the president's ear.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/04/2010 06:10 PM
If Bolden approves a compromise (which I think is what he's planning to do) what's Garver going to do about it? She may badmouth the shuttle all she wants, but unless I misunderstood something Bolden is the administrator.

Good cop, bad cop. Garver does appear to have the president's ear.
My guess is that this is the Administration's initial political response to Senator Hutchison's bill.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/04/2010 06:13 PM
Shuttle extension isn't a compromise. It requires additionnal funding. If the extra funding isn't there, there will be no extension.

What would be a compromise then?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/04/2010 06:13 PM
If Bolden approves a compromise (which I think is what he's planning to do) what's Garver going to do about it? She may badmouth the shuttle all she wants, but unless I misunderstood something Bolden is the administrator.

Good cop, bad cop. Garver does appear to have the president's ear.

FWIW, if the two houses of Congress come to some kind of consensus about what they want done (and it doesn't potentially break the bank) then I think that Obama will just wave it through.  He strikes me as a 'consensus' rather than 'leader' type of President who would prefer a middle-of-the-track compromise rather than forcing his views down people's throats.  Notice how he has allowed his healthcare bill to be diluted for an example.

Frankly, I think that space is a low priority for him.  So, if Congress comes up with its own vision and direction and reads it into law, then I think he will tell Dr. Garver to suck it up because he isn't going to start trouble when he has enough on his plate already.  He really doesn't have a dog in this fight.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 06:20 PM
Shuttle extension isn't a compromise. It requires additionnal funding. If the extra funding isn't there, there will be no extension.

What would be a compromise then?

A SD-HLV would be a compromise.  The Shuttle is more of an add-on.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/04/2010 06:21 PM
If Bolden approves a compromise (which I think is what he's planning to do) what's Garver going to do about it? She may badmouth the shuttle all she wants, but unless I misunderstood something Bolden is the administrator.

Good cop, bad cop. Garver does appear to have the president's ear.

In the classic good cop / bad cop scenario, the bad cop frightens the suspect into cooperating with the good cop rather than the bad cop getting her way.

In this instance, the good cop is Charlie Bolden who was asked by Bart Gordon (senior Democrat in the House for space issues) to look into compromises. And apparently he is.

What would a compromise look like? Kay Bailey Hutchison offered one version yesterday.

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 06:23 PM
Housekeeping notes: NO one is allowed to insult the likes of Gen Bolden or Ms Garver on here, totally unacceptable, will result in deletion. You may disagree with their representations - fine, but call them names - no way. Won't stand for that...and I want people to report posts to the moderators, rather than quoting them.

And the spacepolitics site is about space related politics. The clue is in the URL ;) Jeff runs other sites, like spacetoday.net - and they've been nice enough to include our articles, so be nice, even if it's about something that does not appear to be an accurate report (by way of the comments, not the reporting).

Carry on.

Does this policy extend to Mike Griffin too? :)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/04/2010 06:26 PM
Probably.

BTW wouldn't development of a SDHLV require some gap in HSF capability as well? The workforce is happy, but what about all the concerns about no US manned capability for a few years? Will the congressmen be willing to bite that bullet or will preserving the jobs suffice?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/04/2010 06:27 PM
If Bolden approves a compromise (which I think is what he's planning to do) what's Garver going to do about it? She may badmouth the shuttle all she wants, but unless I misunderstood something Bolden is the administrator.

Shuttle extension isn't a compromise. It requires additionnal funding. If the extra funding isn't there, there will be no extension.

What you did, is just called "spin" in order to advance whatever your goals are.

There are clearly near-term strategic interests that have to be paid some attention.  Shuttle offers that possibility and, as such, can be part of any "compromise".  People need to stop looking at this as so black and white.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 06:32 PM
If Bolden approves a compromise (which I think is what he's planning to do) what's Garver going to do about it? She may badmouth the shuttle all she wants, but unless I misunderstood something Bolden is the administrator.

Shuttle extension isn't a compromise. It requires additionnal funding. If the extra funding isn't there, there will be no extension.

What you did, is just called "spin" in order to advance whatever your goals are.

There are clearly near-term strategic interests that have to be paid some attention.  Shuttle offers that possibility and, as such, can be part of any "compromise".  People need to stop looking at this as so black and white.

You are assuming that I have specific "goal". Besides as a NASA contractor, you are the one that seems to have a specific goal. 

The Shuttle extension has required additional funding in any scenario in which it has been presented so far. This isn't spin, it's a fact.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: William Barton on 03/04/2010 06:34 PM
If Bolden approves a compromise (which I think is what he's planning to do) what's Garver going to do about it? She may badmouth the shuttle all she wants, but unless I misunderstood something Bolden is the administrator.

Shuttle extension isn't a compromise. It requires additionnal funding. If the extra funding isn't there, there will be no extension.

What you did, is just called "spin" in order to advance whatever your goals are.

There are clearly near-term strategic interests that have to be paid some attention.  Shuttle offers that possibility and, as such, can be part of any "compromise".  People need to stop looking at this as so black and white.

You're right. The bill is "all things to all people" for a reason. The sponsors have to be able to attract supporters to the bill. One of the most important things to recognize about Shuttle extension is, it's very much a case of status quo ante. And not just ante-Obama, but ante-ESAS, as well, even ante-VSE. In some sense, it's a big, fat reset button.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/04/2010 06:35 PM
You are assuming that I have specific "goal". Besides as a NASA contractor, you are the one that seems to have a specific goal. 

The Shuttle has required additional funding in any scenario in which it has been presented so far. This isn't spin, it's a fact.

As a "contractor" I assure you I am not assuming my job is safe.  Now that little point is out of the way, my goal is not just "Shuttle extension".  My goal is the prevention of the elimination of this entire industry. 

Just because that is the way it has been "presented" does not have to mean that is the way it ends up. 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/04/2010 06:40 PM
The Shuttle extension has required additional funding in any scenario in which it has been presented so far. This isn't spin, it's a fact.

But it also has the advantage of being an already flying capability. No development time required, means you can service ISS (which is what the shuttle was meant to do) and deliver crew without any gap. The question is what is better - getting the funding to extend shuttle or let it end in 2011 and develop a SDHLV from that time on?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 06:45 PM
Anything is possible if you are willing to delay the next generation rocket. But so far that option is not seriously being considered by either Congress or the President.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/04/2010 06:49 PM
Nevertheless it is an option and it does have it's advantages, as well as disadvantages. It delays the next generation rocket in order to retain an uninterrupted capability to deliver crew and cargo to ISS.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 06:50 PM
Anything is possible if you are willing to delay the next generation rocket. But so far that option is not seriously being considered by either Congress or the President.

The FY2011 Proposal does exactly that, delays the next gen rocket. And if we're talking about this obscure "game changing" vehicle, then what was Mr Bolden talking about when he said the $9 billion (plus $2.5 billion to pay up the contracts via disposal) for CxP was, quote "a good investment" - which I find ironic when people are gasping at the price of extending the one vehicle we actually have flying on operational missions.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: fredm6463 on 03/04/2010 06:57 PM
"The new bill seems to pull the rug out from under the NewSpace competitors because extending STS to 2015 palliates the "gap crisis," and makes CCDEV seems less urgent."

I don't think so.  NewSpace has got plenty to do, and plenty of money to make.  Their sense of urgency, I think, will continue under the proposed bill since they would be virtually certain to be able to send cargo up to ISS for less than the shuttle costs, and therefore it's to their advantage to hustle.

The bill seems pretty good to me, at least on a first read.

In the opening words of the article, Chris pointed out how Griffin sorta played the part of Brutus:  he was one of the first to stab the shuttle program, right under Bush's nose.  I don't get why the new administrator seems to want to make the final stab at killing the shuttle.

That's not strictly accurate. SpaceX and OSC have plenty to do, and money to make if they succeed. But if STS is continued to 2015, where's the urgency for space, new or old? And suppose SpaceX and OSC fail to deliver the goods? STS will take up the slack. If there weren't any more disasters between then and now, come 2015, what's to stop Congress from saying, "Okay, lets just keep flying STS 'til the end of ISS in 2020?" That's what I was saying, with regard to the "gap crisis" and the urgency of CCDEV. The easiest way to solve a problem is to ignore it, until something bad happens. Then it's too late.

That's exactly what NASA management, NASA engineering and the contractors did to cause both the Challenger and Columbia disasters.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Kitspacer on 03/04/2010 06:59 PM
If Bolden approves a compromise (which I think is what he's planning to do) what's Garver going to do about it? She may badmouth the shuttle all she wants, but unless I misunderstood something Bolden is the administrator.

Shuttle extension isn't a compromise. It requires additionnal funding. If the extra funding isn't there, there will be no extension.

What you did, is just called "spin" in order to advance whatever your goals are.

There are clearly near-term strategic interests that have to be paid some attention.  Shuttle offers that possibility and, as such, can be part of any "compromise".  People need to stop looking at this as so black and white.

You're right. The bill is "all things to all people" for a reason. The sponsors have to be able to attract supporters to the bill. One of the most important things to recognize about Shuttle extension is, it's very much a case of status quo ante. And not just ante-Obama, but ante-ESAS, as well, even ante-VSE. In some sense, it's a big, fat reset button.

Since Garver has no qualifications to justify her appointment at NASA, it must be her political affiliations that indicate something of a "watchdog" posture - keeping Bolden and/or successors toeing the "Party Line" etc. It'll be interesting to see if this indicates who truly holds the reins at NASA.... :P
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 07:04 PM
Anything is possible if you are willing to delay the next generation rocket. But so far that option is not seriously being considered by either Congress or the President.

The FY2011 Proposal does exactly that, delays the next gen rocket. And if we're talking about this obscure "game changing" vehicle, then what was Mr Bolden talking about when he said the $9 billion (plus $2.5 billion to pay up the contracts via disposal) for CxP was, quote "a good investment" - which I find ironic when people are gasping at the price of extending the one vehicle we actually have flying on operational missions.

Are you saying that you are favouring Shuttle extension, commercial crew in 2016 and a HLV in 2025-2030?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Kitspacer on 03/04/2010 07:08 PM

STS re-entries have all been successful except for one (Columbia; with known ET debris striking the orbiters, which I am surprised the Roger's Commission investigating the Challenger accident in 1986, never considered a serious threat to the orbiter).


STS-27 did not kill anyone so I guess no one figured it needed fixin'.  :-(  But yes, with all the stuff they did uncover why not foam shedding?

We're assuming of course that it actually WAS the chunk of foam that did the damage. Remember the elevated temperatures in the undercarriage well: may have been something else...in 1/2MxVsquared terms quite possibly. Why the possibility was dismissed; because re-entry leading-edge wing loading exceeded likely impact loading from foam strikes?  ???
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 07:08 PM
then what was Mr Bolden talking about when he said the $9 billion (plus $2.5 billion to pay up the contracts via disposal) for CxP was, quote "a good investment"

Bolden was just appeasing Congressmen. Most of the 9 billion will not yield any benefit in the future. Bolden has given the example of heatshield technology developed for Orion that might be reused by other companies. That's what he meant with "good investment".
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: dad2059 on 03/04/2010 07:13 PM
Are you saying that you are favouring Shuttle extension, commercial crew in 2016 and a HLV in 2025-2030?

Where have you been? Asking Chris if he supports shuttle extension is like asking him if he supports breathing air!  ;D
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 07:18 PM
Anything is possible if you are willing to delay the next generation rocket. But so far that option is not seriously being considered by either Congress or the President.

The FY2011 Proposal does exactly that, delays the next gen rocket. And if we're talking about this obscure "game changing" vehicle, then what was Mr Bolden talking about when he said the $9 billion (plus $2.5 billion to pay up the contracts via disposal) for CxP was, quote "a good investment" - which I find ironic when people are gasping at the price of extending the one vehicle we actually have flying on operational missions.

Are you saying that you are favouring Shuttle extension, commercial crew in 2016 and a HLV in 2025-2030?

I'm saying the claims an extension would delay SD HLV to 2025-2030 are incorrect, but let's assume your correct for the purpose of making a point, as the alternative (FY2011 proposal) is: Paying Russia to ferry the occasional US astro to the ISS, commercial crew in 2015-2016 (not certain), and "Game Changing" HLV *maybe* heading into the 2025-2030 scenario.

"My" preference still comes out top. Someone get me the President's phone number ;)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/04/2010 07:27 PM

STS re-entries have all been successful except for one (Columbia; with known ET debris striking the orbiters, which I am surprised the Roger's Commission investigating the Challenger accident in 1986, never considered a serious threat to the orbiter).


STS-27 did not kill anyone so I guess no one figured it needed fixin'.  :-(  But yes, with all the stuff they did uncover why not foam shedding?

We're assuming of course that it actually WAS the chunk of foam that did the damage.
On STS-27, it wasn't ET foam that did the tile damage.  Discussed here more than once, should be search-able.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: phantomdj on 03/04/2010 07:33 PM
I just have a fundamentally different vision for NASA than others. I believe it is not necessary to have a 100mt S-HLV, not now, not in 2030. That's one thing.

No one is asking for that now. A SDHLV (J-120/J-130) would be a 50mt to 75mt vehicle that can lift crew and/or cargo to the ISS and, in time when money is available, scale up to a 100+ mt vehicle (J-24x) if necessary for futher BEO missions.

Quote
Another thing is that I believe technology development and R&D do have a specific purpose BEYOND just merely supporting old-school chemical propulsion BEO flights and 100mt S-HLVs. I believe they can replace the way Apollo worked in a manner we don't believe it is possible right now. I believe with new technology we can do exploration cheaper, better, more sustainable and quicker than with the old approach of using large rockets and chemical fuels and heavy NASA involvement in designing and operating vehicles.

I think we all agree that BEO to Mars will need "game changing" technology but there are things we can do in the meantime before that technology comes to fruition.  Having a HLV in this decade and not 2 or 3 decades out allow us to do shake-down flights around the moon or to NEO and EXPLORE while we wait for "game changing" technology.

Quote
And that is also why I think "inspiring kids" is what the new FY2011 budget will do eventually in a much better way than this proposed amendment bill which will, rest assured, leave us in LEO for the next 20 years due to funding issues and high operational costs for maintaining Orion and a S-HLV down the line. In my opinion in 10-15 years we will have realistic BEO reference missions of a type that folks right now say just can't be baselined because the technology isn't available.

This is where we really disagree.  As one that was an inspired kid from the golden age of spaceflight (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo) it was this new exploring that inspired us. With a young daughter today, I can tell you that circling to earth like NASCAR is not inspiring kids today despite the fact that we have the ISS up there.  EXPLORING BEO is what will inspire kids today and the FY2011 budget does not do that until 2025 or 2030.  Having a J-130 by 2014 and a J-24x by 2018 allows exploration sooner to inspire our children.


Quote
I understand that people like to take the approach of using proven and existing hardware only, that fuel depots, high isp in-space propulsion, SEP, NEP, commercial spacecraft, inflatable habs, semi-automatic robotics, 180mt Mars surface reference missions instead of 1200mt Mars surface reference missions etc. on the critical path are a thing that frightens people.

No, I would say most of us would like to see most of that but you will not have any of it for 2 or 3 decades with the FY2011 budget.

Quote
But to really get back on topic, the three question we all need to (objectively!!!) ask ourselves with regard to this new amendment bill are as follows:

1. Is it likely that NASA will get a 3bn+ per year increase in the budget as outlined in the bill in the current economic environment?
2. If not, where will the funds for STS extension come from if not from newly proposed line-items in the FY2011 budget?
3. If NASA does not get the 3bn+ per year budget but just the 1bn-1.5b+ per year budget increase as proposed, where will the funds for STS extension, HLV development and Orion come from if not from technology line-items, commercial crew and robotic precursor programs?


I will let people with more insight than me answer these questions.  However, it is my understanding that a SDHLV (J130) can be done in 36 months with the existing budget and that shuttle extension only needs 2 or 3 years of extra money to cover the gap (yes 5 years would be nice but…).

As Robert Crippen, former astronaut who served as pilot aboard shuttle Columbia on the first shuttle and past director of Kennedy Space Center said, "Yes, it costs money, but that money is available in the current $19 billion budget proposal by redirecting some of the funding from other programs…This would remove our total reliance on the Russians and keep that funding in the United States. It would allow us to continue to operate the ISS in a more productive manner until one of these commercial entities proved they had the wherewithal to launch our crews…It is not a matter of can we afford it. We cannot afford not to."
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Kitspacer on 03/04/2010 07:37 PM
Excellent article, although I'm rather concerned by this part of the bill:

Quote
.... and the Ares-1 Crew Launch Vehicle, to the extent that such elements are determined to be cost effective and operationally effective.

Oh Dear,
the reason why all this angst is being expended. I think considering it's very real limitations, the one thing that needs to be dropped is precisely that: $9billion, six years and an Iffy test flight - to be Charitable... :P
I don't think so. >:(
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/04/2010 07:41 PM
then what was Mr Bolden talking about when he said the $9 billion (plus $2.5 billion to pay up the contracts via disposal) for CxP was, quote "a good investment"

Bolden was just appeasing Congressmen. Most of the 9 billion will not yield any benefit in the future. Bolden has given the example of heatshield technology developed for Orion that might be reused by other companies. That's what he meant with "good investment".

But it could, and that's the point.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 07:48 PM
As Robert Crippen, former astronaut who served as pilot aboard shuttle Columbia on the first shuttle and past director of Kennedy Space Center said, "Yes, it costs money, but that money is available in the current $19 billion budget proposal by redirecting some of the funding from other programs…This would remove our total reliance on the Russians and keep that funding in the United States. It would allow us to continue to operate the ISS in a more productive manner until one of these commercial entities proved they had the wherewithal to launch our crews…It is not a matter of can we afford it. We cannot afford not to."

The money is available within the total NASA budget, that wasn't my point. I said that you need take away from other line-item, be it technology development, R&D, science, robotics or commercial crew to get an HLV developed + STS extended + Orion. There is no other way around it. If your priorities are as such, you need to also cut the alternative programs proposed in the FY2011. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

And no, this bill that is proposed isn't a compromise between two different camps, it's a completely different alternative. The budget increase it wants won't happen (+1.4bn in FY2011; +2.2bn in FY2012 OVER the already scheduled increase) and because it won't happen a decision has to be made - should we develop payloads and the technology for BEO payloads and rely on existing rockets or some moderate modifications of them or should we develop rockets and keep STS running for a few more years? That's the decision we need to make, we can go one way or another, but realistically, given budget constraints, we can't do both. I think we should concentrate on the payloads and the technology for the payloads, because if we do not, we won't be able to launch anything with our shiny S-HLVs.

P.S. ISS can be operated without the Shuttle. People seem to forget we already did that once. And since the days of 2003-2005, 2 new cargo vehicles have come online and 2 additional will come online likely next year. With STS-135 we could even wait for the first CRS vehicle to have its IOC until 2012 without a problem.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 07:50 PM
then what was Mr Bolden talking about when he said the $9 billion (plus $2.5 billion to pay up the contracts via disposal) for CxP was, quote "a good investment"

Bolden was just appeasing Congressmen. Most of the 9 billion will not yield any benefit in the future. Bolden has given the example of heatshield technology developed for Orion that might be reused by other companies. That's what he meant with "good investment".

But it could, and that's the point.

Yes, most of the money could have been an investment that would be used further (not sure if I would characterise it as a "good investment"). I don't think that is really disputed. 5segment SRBs can of course be used on an HLV. Orion can continue and J2x and Ares I upper stage development also can continue. It's a question of whether we want to determine the path forward based on sunk cost or based on what NASA should be doing in the future.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/04/2010 07:51 PM

Chris, thank you for your detailed answer. And please rest assured, I respect your opinion and the opinions of others. But I still have to disagree on the necessity of HLV development, on the necessity to take over most of the Shuttle workforce to another program (which believe me, won't be possible no matter what Shuttle derived HLV follow on program there would be) and on the necessity to do BEO flights the way we did in the 1960s.

At the end, I just have a fundamentally different vision for NASA than others. I believe it is not necessary to have a 100mt S-HLV, not now, not in 2030. That's one thing. Another thing is that I believe technology development and R&D do have a specific purpose BEYOND just merely supporting old-school chemical propulsion BEO flights and 100mt S-HLVs. I believe they can replace the way Apollo worked in a manner we don't believe it is possible right now. I believe with new technology we can do exploration cheaper, better, more sustainable and quicker than with the old approach of using large rockets and chemical fuels and heavy NASA involvement in designing and operating vehicles. And that is also why I think "inspiring kids" is what the new FY2011 budget will do eventually in a much better way than this proposed amendment bill which will, rest assured, leave us in LEO for the next 20 years due to funding issues and high operational costs for maintaining Orion and a S-HLV down the line. In my opinion in 10-15 years we will have realistic BEO reference missions of a type that folks right now say just can't be baselined because the technology isn't available.

I understand that people like to take the approach of using proven and existing hardware only, that fuel depots, high isp in-space propulsion, SEP, NEP, commercial spacecraft, inflatable habs, semi-automatic robotics, 180mt Mars surface reference missions instead of 1200mt Mars surface reference missions etc. on the critical path are a thing that frightens people. And I admit, this path is the risky one, it's a path that might not get us straight to success down a predefined, totally fletched-out neat path, but for me that this path puts all the above things into the critical path and assumes risk again is the actual exciting thing that NASA will now be doing. And the risk is well worth it, because due to that risk NASA will have a sustained exploration future in contrast to using super large government designed rockets and chemical fuels which IMHO doesn't have a future for deep space missions.

But to really get back on topic, the three question we all need to (objectively!!!) ask ourselves with regard to this new amendment bill are as follows:

1. Is it likely that NASA will get a 3bn+ per year increase in the budget as outlined in the bill in the current economic environment?
2. If not, where will the funds for STS extension come from if not from newly proposed line-items in the FY2011 budget?
3. If NASA does not get the 3bn+ per year budget but just the 1bn-1.5b+ per year budget increase as proposed, where will the funds for STS extension, HLV development and Orion come from if not from technology line-items, commercial crew and robotic precursor programs?

I have given an answer to all these 3 points above and I remain convinced these are sensible answers and that the answer to 1. is absolutely clear and that the answers to 2. and 3. mean that there are no funds whatsoever left for anything aside from STS extension + HLV development + Orion development in the next 5 years (unless we start cutting Science and Aeronautics etc. too) if we go down this road. We will be stuck with the operating costs of an HLV and Orion without being able to use them for anything except LEO flights, which will go hand in hand with the next crisis of NASA with Congress starting finger pointing again.

With the above statement, I have to wonder how this fits with your tag at the bottom of every post you make, "Spirals, not circles". 

Sprial development and operations are taking what you have and building on it in incremental steps.  What you advocate above, while part of it is necessary, is not a spiral but stopping everything hoping and assuming that we will get something out of it and then someone arbitrarily and subjectively deciding it is "now good enough" and "sustainable" and then we will go somewhere.  In my opinion and experience that is a very bad position to be in.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/04/2010 07:57 PM
Sprial development and operations are taking what you have and building on it in incremental steps.  What you advocate above, while part of it is necessary, is not a spiral but stopping everything hoping and assuming that we will get something out of it and then someone arbitrarily and subjectively deciding it is "now good enough" and "sustainable" and then we will go somewhere.  In my opinion and experience that is a very bad position to be in.

Spiral development works this way:

Phase 1: LEO vehicle development, once you got one, you just finished a spiral.
Phase 2: BEO vehicle development based on LEO vehicle development.
Phase 1a: use of existing rockets (10-20mt) for cargo and crew
Phase 2a: use of modified existing rockets for the first BEO flights (30-35mt)
Phase 1b: demonstrate advanced in-space propulsion and in-space technology in LEO
Phase 2b: demonstrate advanced in-space propulsion and in-space technology for the first BEO flights
Phase 3: build a mission hab for longer BEO flights
Phase 3a: further develop your existing rockets for assembly of spacecrafts for longer BEO flights (50mt)
Phase 3b: baseline advanced in-sapce propulsion for longer BEO flights
etc. etc.

It does not work like this:
Build a "one size fits it all" expensive BEO vehicle and a "one size fits it all" S-HLV for the next 30-40 years of exploration.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/04/2010 08:01 PM
It does not work like this:
Build a "one size fits it all" expensive BEO vehicle and a "one size fits it all" S-HLV for the next 30-40 years of exploration.

You do realise that is not what is being proposed here, don't you?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kch on 03/04/2010 08:09 PM
It does not work like this:
Build a "one size fits it all" expensive BEO vehicle and a "one size fits it all" S-HLV for the next 30-40 years of exploration.

You do realise that is not what is being proposed here, don't you?

Doesn't sound like he gets that ...
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Roo on 03/04/2010 08:14 PM
Surely, what should be involving the minds of everyone is 'what needs to be done'.

As it stands, the primary problem needing a solid and fixed resolution is that of servicing the ISS. Out of the 3 of Shuttle extension, Soyuz and commercial, it is simply logical that Shuttle extension wins. It isn't a matter of who's right or wrong, or preference or even the future. ISS needs servicing now and Shuttle is best placed to do that. So extend Shuttle pure and simple.

NASA has limited funds and cannot do it all. With expansion comes exponential costs and so sooner or later, NASA has to have a ceiling to what it can do. Commercial can help with this, but only after they've unequivocally proved they are safe and reliable. It takes a brave man to bet on an uncertainty. Commercial will have their chance for sure and their part (a big part) - but now is simply not the time.

The point of all this, is that you have to accept the situation as it exists right now and then find solutions that fix those problems. Servicing ISS is going to cost a fair bit, but it is up there and cannot be 'walked away from' to pursue other ventures whilst handing it over to untried systems. In simple language, that's sheer lunacy. I would rather an experienced driver, paramedic and proven ambulance take me to the hospital in the event of an emergency over an untried commercial setup any day.

When you have limited funds, you have to make the best of what you have. Current technology is more than capable of doing the job, it keeps the workforce and steadies the ship. A strong hand at the tiller is the best way through stormy waters. But what we have now is a hand that doesn't know what a tiller is, let alone how best to use it.

But everything still boils down to funds it seems - NASA just can't do it all. Maybe this whole situation will shed light on the broad range of work that NASA does. Maybe - and my opinion - NASA, if it really does want to take HSF and exploration seriously, will simply have no choice but re-organise itself and shed certain areas by handing them over to other agencies whilst asking to retain the same funding. That's a tall order to ask of course, but exploration needs concentration of set skills and the shedding of Earth Sciences should be given serious thought - in my view.

The Bill under discussion here is simply giving an answer to the logical question of, 'what needs to be done right now'. And it is a good answer, as it does just that.

Roo.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Downix on 03/04/2010 08:22 PM
this just struck me, what if this bill was the whole intent of Bolton/Obamas plan in the first place?  If Bolton had come forward with "We want a SD-HLV" Congress would have drug it feet, kept Ares going, and the shuttle would have been quietly retired while the hemming and hawing went on, eliminating this capability.  Instead, they put forth a radical proposal, so much so that it made everyone jump at once, and scramble.  Now, we have a proposal nearly ideal for the long term vision, and in record time.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/04/2010 08:30 PM
It does not work like this:
Build a "one size fits it all" expensive BEO vehicle and a "one size fits it all" S-HLV for the next 30-40 years of exploration.

You do realise that is not what is being proposed here, don't you?

LOL, thank you!
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Kitspacer on 03/04/2010 08:31 PM

Chris, thank you for your detailed answer. And please rest assured, I respect your opinion and the opinions of others. But I still have to disagree on the necessity of HLV development, on the necessity to take over most of the Shuttle workforce to another program (which believe me, won't be possible no matter what Shuttle derived HLV follow on program there would be) and on the necessity to do BEO flights the way we did in the 1960s.

At the end, I just have a fundamentally different vision for NASA than others. I believe it is not necessary to have a 100mt S-HLV, not now, not in 2030. That's one thing. Another thing is that I believe technology development and R&D do have a specific purpose BEYOND just merely supporting old-school chemical propulsion BEO flights and 100mt S-HLVs. I believe they can replace the way Apollo worked in a manner we don't believe it is possible right now. I believe with new technology we can do exploration cheaper, better, more sustainable and quicker than with the old approach of using large rockets and chemical fuels and heavy NASA involvement in designing and operating vehicles. And that is also why I think "inspiring kids" is what the new FY2011 budget will do eventually in a much better way than this proposed amendment bill which will, rest assured, leave us in LEO for the next 20 years due to funding issues and high operational costs for maintaining Orion and a S-HLV down the line. In my opinion in 10-15 years we will have realistic BEO reference missions of a type that folks right now say just can't be baselined because the technology isn't available.

I understand that people like to take the approach of using proven and existing hardware only, that fuel depots, high isp in-space propulsion, SEP, NEP, commercial spacecraft, inflatable habs, semi-automatic robotics, 180mt Mars surface reference missions instead of 1200mt Mars surface reference missions etc. on the critical path are a thing that frightens people. And I admit, this path is the risky one, it's a path that might not get us straight to success down a predefined, totally fletched-out neat path, but for me that this path puts all the above things into the critical path and assumes risk again is the actual exciting thing that NASA will now be doing. And the risk is well worth it, because due to that risk NASA will have a sustained exploration future in contrast to using super large government designed rockets and chemical fuels which IMHO doesn't have a future for deep space missions.

But to really get back on topic, the three question we all need to (objectively!!!) ask ourselves with regard to this new amendment bill are as follows:

1. Is it likely that NASA will get a 3bn+ per year increase in the budget as outlined in the bill in the current economic environment?
2. If not, where will the funds for STS extension come from if not from newly proposed line-items in the FY2011 budget?
3. If NASA does not get the 3bn+ per year budget but just the 1bn-1.5b+ per year budget increase as proposed, where will the funds for STS extension, HLV development and Orion come from if not from technology line-items, commercial crew and robotic precursor programs?

I have given an answer to all these 3 points above and I remain convinced these are sensible answers and that the answer to 1. is absolutely clear and that the answers to 2. and 3. mean that there are no funds whatsoever left for anything aside from STS extension + HLV development + Orion development in the next 5 years (unless we start cutting Science and Aeronautics etc. too) if we go down this road. We will be stuck with the operating costs of an HLV and Orion without being able to use them for anything except LEO flights, which will go hand in hand with the next crisis of NASA with Congress starting finger pointing again.

With the above statement, I have to wonder how this fits with your tag at the bottom of every post you make, "Spirals, not circles". 

Sprial development and operations are taking what you have and building on it in incremental steps.  What you advocate above, while part of it is necessary, is not a spiral but stopping everything hoping and assuming that we will get something out of it and then someone arbitrarily and subjectively deciding it is "now good enough" and "sustainable" and then we will go somewhere.  In my opinion and experience that is a very bad position to be in.

As long as you have the capability, unit costing can be reduced by launch frequency. If we have to keep designing and building to suit, Space endeavors will be necessarily expensive.  Unless the miracle "Space Elevator" becomes technologically feasible, the major costs will reside in Launch and Orbital Insertion. Gravity wells don't go away unless...

Currently the talk is an Orion Crew of 3 instead of 4 which BTW is down from the original Six, thanks to ARES 1 payload shortfalls. If we're incapable of building nothing but obese hardware (check out J-2x weight increase from original) then yes indeed we need 100t launchers.  I would also point out that the $100Billion ISS cost was chewed up in STS launches because of the EELV+ size payloads. Savings? I see no savings!(sorry Horatio!). If EELV's and Taurus/Falcon are all we've got, then I ask you to consider why the Russians have failed to go BEO? Check their launcher payload range. Check out also the new Russian 25-150ton launcher family employing modularised vehicle components. They know which way to go while we continue to argue the toss ad nauseam... :P
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/04/2010 08:36 PM
...
Unless the miracle "Space Elevator" becomes technologically feasible, the major costs will reside in Launch and Orbital Insertion. ...
As far as I'm aware of, spacecraft tend to cost far more than their launch vehicles. On the order of $100,000/kg instead of $10,000/kg (which is launch costs to LEO).
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Pheogh on 03/04/2010 08:39 PM
Thanks for the kind words to the people above :)

Yeah, the Ares I reference also made me wonder, but I'm not sure it means "go back and continue with Ares I" - they can't based on budget alone anyway, and the Augustine findings would still stand.

The Ares 1 references are, first, "suggestive" as options to be reviewed as part of HLV development. The notion is that an evolvable shuttle-derived HLV could begin with a core that might be an in-line configuration of 4-segment SSRBs, coupled to an ET-sized core segment (strengthened and with a boat-tail at the bottom holding SSMEs, and a payload attachment/inter-stage carrying an accelerated Orion with LAS attached) which would become the "government-operated" LEO/ISS support capability, with a target IOC of 2013; the core would then evolve using five-segment SSRB, powered upper stage with capability for cargo and crew for providing exo-LEO capability by 2018. Sounds familiar? All that could be accomplished without necessarily engaging in a two-year new procurement process by using existing contracts, novated to redirect work to those configurations. That would mean Ares 1 serves to provide additional testing of 5-segment performance characteristics, as well as potentially serving to test LAS capabilities, etc., but not to serve as a full system for crew delivery to LEO/ISS, as has been the focus under Constellation; the initial evolvable HLV core could serve in that role, and then grow/evolve to the full HLV capability for support of exo-LEO missions. At least those are the underlying assumptions that are proposed for refinement and evaluation as an option. That scenario is also founded on very strong indications that such an approach is not only a matter of informal industry-level conversations, but also a matter of internal discussions within NASA. In essence, the language in the bill helps provide "top-cover" for pursuing those kinds of discussions to determine the degree of feasibility and potential for successful development.

GULP   :D
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mmeijeri on 03/04/2010 08:41 PM
As far as I'm aware of, spacecraft tend to cost far more than their launch vehicles. On the order of $100,000/kg instead of $10,000/kg (which is launch costs to LEO).

This is why reusable spacecraft are so important. Once you have those, launch costs dominate total costs. And fixed costs are still a large part of those launch costs, but they would be reduced with higher flight rates, which in turn are made possible by reusable spacecraft.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: neilh on 03/04/2010 08:54 PM
this just struck me, what if this bill was the whole intent of Bolton/Obamas plan in the first place?  If Bolton had come forward with "We want a SD-HLV" Congress would have drug it feet, kept Ares going, and the shuttle would have been quietly retired while the hemming and hawing went on, eliminating this capability.  Instead, they put forth a radical proposal, so much so that it made everyone jump at once, and scramble.  Now, we have a proposal nearly ideal for the long term vision, and in record time.

It's a possibility. I find it interesting that essentially NOBODY supports PoR/Ares anymore post-Feb. 1, and the debate has largely changed to DIRECT vs. R&D/commercial.

On a related note, I also find it interesting that none of the folks who were decrying the Feb. 1 budget for a lack of goal/plan/details/destinations/whatever are doing the same for the Hutchinson bill. The goals, planning, and destinations are exactly the same as they were under the Feb. 1 budget.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Pheogh on 03/04/2010 09:08 PM
Is there anything in this bill that the commercial guys would be staunchly against. If not it would sure be nice to hear them chime in, in support?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: neilh on 03/04/2010 09:30 PM
Is there anything in this bill that the commercial guys would be staunchly against. If not it would sure be nice to hear them chime in, in support?

IMHO, while the Hutchinson bill is better than the PoR from a commercial standpoint, but here are the main concerns:

* R&D: It's looking like NSTS/DIRECT funding is coming out of the R&D budget, which may very well mean a delay or cancellation of a propellant depot demonstrator. A depot is a massive enabler for commercial and spaceflight in general.
* funding: It's not likely that Congress will fund the full amount asked for in the initial compromise bill, and commercial will likely be seen as a source for money to pay for DIRECT/Shuttle.
* This claim, and the resulting NSTS focus, from the bill is IMHO somewhat absurd, and it makes it pretty clear what'll end up on the budgetary cutting board when push comes to shove: "While commercial transportation systems may contribute valuable services, it is in the United States’ national interest to maintain a government operated space transportation system for crew and cargo delivery to low-Earth orbit and beyond."
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Lobo on 03/04/2010 09:34 PM
this just struck me, what if this bill was the whole intent of Bolton/Obamas plan in the first place?  If Bolton had come forward with "We want a SD-HLV" Congress would have drug it feet, kept Ares going, and the shuttle would have been quietly retired while the hemming and hawing went on, eliminating this capability.  Instead, they put forth a radical proposal, so much so that it made everyone jump at once, and scramble.  Now, we have a proposal nearly ideal for the long term vision, and in record time.

Anything is possible, but I find it highly unlikely.  Usually the most simple answer is the right one.  There's not reason to think there's anything going on other than what it looks like.  Besides, he has huge majorities in Congress.  There's no need for him to try to do an end-run bait-and-switch manevuer.  And given his other pet projects, I doubt he gave a whole lot of consideration to it personally one way or the other. 

If anything positive comes out of this, I think it will be inspite of his proposal, not because of it.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 09:46 PM
It does not work like this:
Build a "one size fits it all" expensive BEO vehicle and a "one size fits it all" S-HLV for the next 30-40 years of exploration.

You do realise that is not what is being proposed here, don't you?

If Shuttle lasted 30 years, what makes you think that the J-2xx wouldn't last 30 years?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Longhorn John on 03/04/2010 10:08 PM

What is my opinion? The numbers I posted above? Numbers don't lie. If you don't add up to 10bn over the next 5 years, you will have to take 10bn for Shuttle extension from somewhere. And if you don't add even more, you will have to take from other line-items for HLV development. It's simple math.

Again, what claim of HLV by 2020 are you referring to. I asked Chris the same question, I haven't talked about HLV by 2020 or 2030 or at any other time on this thread. Above I said "HLV in 8 years" which would be 2018 as mentioned in the bill as the first possible BEO date.

Thought I had already answered, but I must have been distracted ;) I'm going to sound a bit rowdy here, but that's just me - as I think you know now, no offense is intended, and I do enjoy your counter views (and welcome them for the purpose of debate).

So where do we start. Ok, I understand you've not talked HLV in 2030, but that's the current Bolden plan, as noted at the KSC presser he held. Florida Today pressed him on it, he repeated it, quote "2030s" - even if that's the latter end of the estimate - as much as he doesn't even seem to know yet.

Regardless, that's a quoted fact and we need to compare the proposal with the Bill, because NASA gets 18-19 billion dollars a year, and to say NASA won't be building another launch vehicle for about 20 years is shockingly bad.

The HLV at least 10 years sooner is based on an inline SD HLV, which won the trade study over RP-1, Sidemount, as the main alternative to Ares V (which loses out via no Ares I - as much as commonality was lost during dev).

I won't even claim to know costs, because no one fully knows - not me and not you - and I highly doubt the Direct guys do either for the Inline, other than maybe estimates. However, what I can claim is via those involved in the HLV study Bolden himself called for and via SSP sources who had involvement (some of whom I know personally). And it's worth noting that there was a heavy dose of objectivity placed into the study.

Based on what I've been told (so yes, it's open for debate regardless) SD HLV wins on cost and thus schedule, combined with SD hardware transition. It wins on workforce skillset, it wins on reliability due to commonality, it wins on infrastructure and it gets the payload where it needs to be. People cite "six months to Mars, need game changing propulsion" - but we're not going to Mars first, or we shouldn't be, based on what we need to learn about BEO (ref: Bolden and others) - see Flexible Path options NASA themselves prefer - such as L1/L2 telescopes:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/manned-mission-to-construct-huge-geo-and-deep-space-telescopes-proposed/

What I find confusing is when some people think the Bolden HLV plan is 'better' when no one even knows what the hell the plan is other than it'll be "game changing" and you aren't going to see any time soon as NASA will be busy "inspiring kids" with their Earth Monitoring studies (element of sarcasm, I know).

Also, I wouldn't ignore the Augustine Committee's confirmed reference to the ONLY gap reducing effort comes via Shuttle Extension to SD HLV, which had a peer review by the Aerospace Corp - thus they'll know more about this path than me, you and pretty everyone else on this thread combined.

In summary, we have several priorities, and the main one is the present, not least, but not soley, due to 10,000s of thousands of people about to lose their jobs - and more importantly the skillset of brilliant engineers, who I may feel a little bit more passionately about because a) I know some of them b) every day I'm astonished with how the find problems, create solutions, it's really stunning and I've personally never seen anything close to how good they are, even at a military level - and people are happy they are looking at jobs in on production lines in the motor industry? Sorry, but I think that is tantermount to a betrayal.

Over-ridding is the loss of the hardware. I wonder if people aren't allowing the loss of shuttle it sink in. We all know it's an amazing vehicle, but for more reasons that may be obvious. We ARE exploring every damn time we launch a mission. Forget LEO only, we're just finishing the construction of a huge Space Station, in space! Even forget about the daft move of finishing ISS and then forgetting to support it under the extension to 2020, you need to examine the ins and outs of a shuttle mission, a human mission in space on a very complicated vehicle - which in turn allows us to learn how to do it. I won't go on about that, but some people are stuck in the "oh, shuttle mission to the ISS, been there, done that" mode.

The main point is, like it or not, what we do now will have implications on the future. The ONLY solution to NOW, is to extend the shuttle and transition to a commonality HLV, in tandem with COTS/CRS to transition from upmass to ISS first, prove reliability, and take over ISS crew transport within a year, or two, of shuttle retirement. That still gets NASA out of the LEO business, but with all the benefits of a smooth transition.

If we need to cut other things from the budget to make it affordable, cut it, cut the damn lot, because we can't pin our hopes on a vehicle that is so far away, it'll probably never get built due to changing governments and numerous changes to the NASA admin over the years.

Anyway, not claiming to be "right" but that's my opinion on it.

Epic post Chris.

Do we think Deep Space Telescopes would have support in Congress?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/04/2010 10:14 PM
I think the enthusiasm for the February proposal is based on the way it essentially cleared the field for commercial crew, by shutting down STS

STS was shut down by a decision of President George W. Bush in January 2004.



And the environment of today is 100% different and you know it. 

I am not arguing here about the environment, I am simply stating a fact. The Shuttle was canceled by George W. Bush in 2004. That's my only point.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/04/2010 10:15 PM
...
Unless the miracle "Space Elevator" becomes technologically feasible, the major costs will reside in Launch and Orbital Insertion. ...
As far as I'm aware of, spacecraft tend to cost far more than their launch vehicles. On the order of $100,000/kg instead of $10,000/kg (which is launch costs to LEO).

Quite right - unless you're talking about Delta IV-H, which is a beast as far as launch costs go.

-One-off manufacturing
-New technology in each payload
-Building to space standards

However Galileo's launch costs - $569m - are close to the production run costs - $811m. ExoMars of course costs the same amount but it's one spacecraft instead of fourteen and launch costs are a small chunk of that.

Standardised, simple payloads like Bigelow inflatables ought to be fairly cheap, approximating launch costs.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: rv_rocket on 03/04/2010 10:48 PM
It does not work like this:
Build a "one size fits it all" expensive BEO vehicle and a "one size fits it all" S-HLV for the next 30-40 years of exploration.

You do realise that is not what is being proposed here, don't you?
Hey clb,
I'm a bit confused, which J-xxx version did you mean when you said "One size fits all S-HLV"??

(And Chris, another great article!)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/04/2010 11:17 PM
FWIW, the whole Florida Congressional delegation has signed a letter to the President expressing deep concern about the Administration's budget; press release from Representative Posey here:
http://posey.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=174865

(Link to letter on that page.)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: neilh on 03/04/2010 11:20 PM
Am I correct in my assessment that the Hutchinson bill completely drops all game-changing technology development? The only references to technology development I can find is that referring to tech development for the NSTS:
Quote
The Administrator shall develop and keep up
19 to date a technology development plan to support the
20 evolving requirements of the National Space Transpor
21 tation System, both for low-Earth orbit requirements and
22 for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. Technology funding
23 provided pursuant to this subsection shall be determined
24 based on the specific mission benefits and the performance
25 requirements needed to achieve clearly identified mission
1 objectives, such as planning to reach destinations beyond
2 low-Earth orbit. There are authorized to be appropriated
3 to the Administrator such amounts for technology funding
4 for propulsion elements as may be necessary to advance
5 the state of the art in propulsion elements as a priority
6 over developments of current state of the art in propulsion
7 systems.


Is there a document someplace which gives an overview of the technology development called for by DIRECT? I recall somebody mentioning that it included propellant depots, but I can't find the info other than a brief reference on the timeline.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/04/2010 11:46 PM
Friends, if you have gained an HLV at the expense of technology development, you have won the battle but lost the war.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: sewand on 03/04/2010 11:50 PM
Am I correct in my assessment that the Hutchinson bill completely drops all game-changing technology development? The only references to technology development I can find is that referring to tech development for the NSTS:



Is there a document someplace which gives an overview of the technology development called for by DIRECT? I recall somebody mentioning that it included propellant depots, but I can't find the info other than a brief reference on the timeline.

DIRECT called for a large LEO propellant depot supplied by international and commercial fuel launches.  The actual lunar mission was to have been on a single J-246.


Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: sewand on 03/05/2010 12:02 AM
Friends, if you have gained an HLV at the expense of technology development, you have won the battle but lost the war.

It's the chicken and the egg - which should come first?  I personally can't see the point of testing VASIMR and Propellant depots in 2014 when they won't be used until 2030.  I presume you don't see the use of HLV until there is something efficient to launch on it. 
I think NASA has to sit down and chart a course, and then determine what would be the least expensive way of getting to that destination with a budget that is essentially flat after inflation.    Is it cheaper to invest in potentially "game changing" technology now, at the expense of throwing away billions in existing HLV infrastructure?  Or should we fly with proven (and costlier) systems now and introduce new technology at a later date?   Perhaps most importantly for NASA, which path is least likely to get cancelled.
But it seems to me that first we have to decide what we want to do.  Some have argued that long range plans are unnecessary, as they are seldom carried out.  But I would say that for a government program that is not driven by profit motives, you need the plan or the political support won't be there. 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/05/2010 12:51 AM
this just struck me, what if this bill was the whole intent of Bolton/Obamas plan in the first place?  If Bolton had come forward with "We want a SD-HLV" Congress would have drug it feet, kept Ares going, and the shuttle would have been quietly retired while the hemming and hawing went on, eliminating this capability.  Instead, they put forth a radical proposal, so much so that it made everyone jump at once, and scramble.  Now, we have a proposal nearly ideal for the long term vision, and in record time.

It's a possibility. I find it interesting that essentially NOBODY supports PoR/Ares anymore post-Feb. 1, and the debate has largely changed to DIRECT vs. R&D/commercial.

On a related note, I also find it interesting that none of the folks who were decrying the Feb. 1 budget for a lack of goal/plan/details/destinations/whatever are doing the same for the Hutchinson bill. The goals, planning, and destinations are exactly the same as they were under the Feb. 1 budget.

Well, when you don't have a plan or a 'stated' goal, only a budget document, how can you specify that in a Bill? The President is supposed to do that, and he hasn't. Bolden has indicated Mars, but there is no plan to get there.

This Bill protects many of the avenues to persue any future goal, and at the same time protects our current assets (like workers, infrastruture, ISS, shuttle) until there are commercial means in place.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/05/2010 12:54 AM

P.S. ISS can be operated without the Shuttle. People seem to forget we already did that once. And since the days of 2003-2005, 2 new cargo vehicles have come online and 2 additional will come online likely next year. With STS-135 we could even wait for the first CRS vehicle to have its IOC until 2012 without a problem.

That's funny...

So the ISS is the same size as it was before, and nothing has been running since? I seem to recall a SARJ failure and a radiator delamination. Now we have a solar array mast issue and a swivel problem.

You're right...no problem waiting for 2012. (rolls eyes) 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/05/2010 12:56 AM
this just struck me, what if this bill was the whole intent of Bolton/Obamas plan in the first place?  If Bolton had come forward with "We want a SD-HLV" Congress would have drug it feet, kept Ares going, and the shuttle would have been quietly retired while the hemming and hawing went on, eliminating this capability.  Instead, they put forth a radical proposal, so much so that it made everyone jump at once, and scramble.  Now, we have a proposal nearly ideal for the long term vision, and in record time.

been there, posted that...lol
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/05/2010 01:02 AM

I posted earlier about the path the Hutchinson bill must follow to become law. I would appreciate it greatly if anyone who posts about the wonders of this draft bill would look at the path it must take before assuming the Hutchinson bill has more than a one percent chance of enactment.

A similar argument could be made for the chances of the current forward plan being approved by Congress. There has to be a compromise, there will be a compromise, and you seem to be using the "this Bill, word for word, won't get through". Probably not, but that's not the purpose. The purpose is to create a basis of argument for Congress to find that middle ground.

To that purpose, this Bill is excellent.

Well said, and insightful. I would also add that it isn't always necessary to enact a law to establish a policy; consensus between the Executive and Legislative branches of government can be found in a variety of ways. But the dialogue has to start somewhere, and the debate has to be framed in some way that reflects that there are a range of alternatives. The discussion so far in this forum has demonstrated, I think, that the bill has perhaps already contributed something to that process.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: jongoff on 03/05/2010 01:21 AM
It's the chicken and the egg - which should come first?  I personally can't see the point of testing VASIMR and Propellant depots in 2014 when they won't be used until 2030.

Note, the 2030 date that gets bandied around here is from a Bolden comment on when we would do an HLV.  Not when we would start doing BEO work again.  With a propellant depot, you could begin doing BEO work (including lunar landings) long before you have an HLV.  Depending on the details, and which technologies pan out and how well they work (and whether commercial crew/cargo to LEO works out), there are some ways I've seen that could allow NASA to be able to send people back to the Moon before they could've with Constellation, and definitely long before 2030.

~Jon
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/05/2010 01:42 AM
It's the chicken and the egg - which should come first?  I personally can't see the point of testing VASIMR and Propellant depots in 2014 when they won't be used until 2030.

Note, the 2030 date that gets bandied around here is from a Bolden comment on when we would do an HLV.  Not when we would start doing BEO work again.  With a propellant depot, you could begin doing BEO work (including lunar landings) long before you have an HLV.  Depending on the details, and which technologies pan out and how well they work (and whether commercial crew/cargo to LEO works out), there are some ways I've seen that could allow NASA to be able to send people back to the Moon before they could've with Constellation, and definitely long before 2030.

~Jon

Jon, what you describe is not the plan announced February 1st. Yes, it could be the plan, but what you state here isn't what Bolden put on the table.

Also, unless there is Congressional buy-in, it doesn't matter whether the plan will work, or not.


Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/05/2010 01:47 AM
the debate has largely changed to DIRECT vs. R&D/commercial.

What's weirder is that the perception seems to forget that DIRECT fully supports commercial and also has nothing against a healthy budget for R&D too.

So really the debate should be about DIRECT/R&D/commercial vs. R&D/commercial alone.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/05/2010 01:58 AM
the debate has largely changed to DIRECT vs. R&D/commercial.

What's weirder is that the perception seems to forget that DIRECT fully supports commercial and also has nothing against a healthy budget for R&D too.

So really the debate should be about DIRECT/R&D/commercial vs. R&D/commercial alone.

Ross.

Direct also supports Shuttle extension, propellant depots, a lunar lander, etc. But if we can't afford all that (and we can't), there is a difficult choice to be made. If we are short on money, I doubt that Direct will support cutting money from the Direct launchers.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Andy USA on 03/05/2010 02:38 AM
Why would Lori Garver go on the record to say shuttle can't be extended, when we know that's not true. That's troubling to me.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: neilh on 03/05/2010 02:42 AM
the debate has largely changed to DIRECT vs. R&D/commercial.

What's weirder is that the perception seems to forget that DIRECT fully supports commercial and also has nothing against a healthy budget for R&D too.

So really the debate should be about DIRECT/R&D/commercial vs. R&D/commercial alone.

Ross.

Direct also supports Shuttle extension, propellant depots, a lunar lander, etc. But if we can't afford all that (and we can't), there is a difficult choice to be made. If we are short on money, I doubt that Direct will support cutting money from the Direct launchers.

That's my primary concern. I find a lot to like with DIRECT (unlike Ares), and would heartily support it (and commercial crew/cargo, R&D, shuttle extension, etc.) in a world without budget constraints. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world, and I'm deeply concerned about what will occur once those constraints come into play.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Patchouli on 03/05/2010 03:18 AM
Some aspects of this bill make perfect sense as a shuttle extension is the only thing that can close the gap.
Building something like the J-130 instead of paying the close down fees for CxP seems like a no brainer.

Besides something like Direct is going to be the cheapest and fastest HLV to bring on line.

Then give all lifting jobs under 25T to commercial.

The hard part would be shuffling the funds to pay for everything but three commercial crew vehicles are going to be a lot cheaper then 5 billion.
I believe Spacex only wanted 300M for an LAS and SNC only needs 1B for Dream Chaser and manrating Atlas V.

I don't know what the others need but it can't be too much.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: jongoff on 03/05/2010 03:22 AM
Also, unless there is Congressional buy-in, it doesn't matter whether the plan will work, or not.

Not that getting Congressional buy-in is a guarantee of success either (or we wouldn't be having this discussion).  I'm starting to wonder if the union of "can get congressional buy-in", "can get the budgets necessary", and "will actually work in practice" is actually a null set.

~Jon
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: jongoff on 03/05/2010 03:26 AM
the debate has largely changed to DIRECT vs. R&D/commercial.

What's weirder is that the perception seems to forget that DIRECT fully supports commercial and also has nothing against a healthy budget for R&D too.

So really the debate should be about DIRECT/R&D/commercial vs. R&D/commercial alone.

Ross.

Direct also supports Shuttle extension, propellant depots, a lunar lander, etc. But if we can't afford all that (and we can't), there is a difficult choice to be made. If we are short on money, I doubt that Direct will support cutting money from the Direct launchers.

That's my primary concern. I find a lot to like with DIRECT (unlike Ares), and would heartily support it (and commercial crew/cargo, R&D, shuttle extension, etc.) in a world without budget constraints. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world, and I'm deeply concerned about what will occur once those constraints come into play.

That's been my concern all along with DIRECT too.  The problem with forming a plan that uses parochial politics to get support is that that support is only an inch deep.  Sure, Shelby will go to bat for DIRECT if someone is endangering MSFC jobs.  But do you think that Shelby or Hutchison or Posey or Vitter or any of the other SDLV fans would lift so much as a finger to protect commercial crew or propellant depots?

No. 

I guess the main reason I'm not so anxious to promote a "DIRECT + commercial + depot" compromise is because I think that in the end it will turn into a "DIRECT as misinterpreted by MSFC with no money left for anything else" situation.

~Jon
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/05/2010 03:40 AM
@ Jon Goff

Quote
The problem with forming a plan that uses parochial politics to get support is that that support is only an inch deep.

Telling influential Senators to "naff off" doesn't avoid "parochial politics" it creates enemies who hate your guts and are highly motivated to thwart your plans.

Inch deep support would seem preferable to "I am so angry I cannot read this statement of opposition!"

YMMV

Wow! "naff off" evades the filters!  :D

 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: simonbp on 03/05/2010 03:45 AM
I can't understand why LEO prop depots keep coming up. It's like someone trying to sell gasoline filling station franchises in 1707; it puts the cart several gigaparsecs before the horse.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:51 AM

I posted earlier about the path the Hutchinson bill must follow to become law. I would appreciate it greatly if anyone who posts about the wonders of this draft bill would look at the path it must take before assuming the Hutchinson bill has more than a one percent chance of enactment.

A similar argument could be made for the chances of the current forward plan being approved by Congress. There has to be a compromise, there will be a compromise, and you seem to be using the "this Bill, word for word, won't get through". Probably not, but that's not the purpose. The purpose is to create a basis of argument for Congress to find that middle ground.

To that purpose, this Bill is excellent.

I agree 100% - the Bill itself is not really intended for enactment, but as an opening bid for some potential compromise, sure, its fine.

The question is: assuming the overall NASA budget is fixed, if CxP or Shuttle are extended, what gets cut?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Eric Hedman on 03/05/2010 04:03 AM
Why would Lori Garver go on the record to say shuttle can't be extended, when we know that's not true. That's troubling to me.
Some people stretch the truth when they start losing an argument they are heavily invested in.  Considering her position it is definitely troubling.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: David AF on 03/05/2010 04:13 AM
Could a 2012 extension be a workable compromise?

And as to Andy's point, I'm also very uncomfortable with the alledged Lori Garver comments. It mirrors the Griffin comments about extension back in 2008, which we now know were utterly false.

Either "all of SSP" are misinforming her, or the Augustine Committee was a farce, with the team working for Sally Ride misinformed (which is even more astonishing if true). That viability did not become unviable within such a short period of time.

Someone of power needs to get to the bottom of that. We're talking about something that relates to thousands of people's jobs. Something is seriously amiss if NASA leadership are making claims that don't appear to match what a government committee was told.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: neilh on 03/05/2010 04:17 AM
I can't understand why LEO prop depots keep coming up. It's like someone trying to sell gasoline filling station franchises in 1707; it puts the cart several gigaparsecs before the horse.

Could you explain this comment? Are you claiming it would be 200 years before orbital propellant depots are useful?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Halidon on 03/05/2010 04:47 AM
Could a 2012 extension be a workable compromise?

I think a stretch, using the remaining tank hardware and spares, is looking pretty likely at this particular moment. Shrinking the gap from 4+ years to 2+ without the costs of re-starting the whole support system sounds like a good compromise.

And as to Andy's point, I'm also very uncomfortable with the alledged Lori Garver comments. It mirrors the Griffin comments about extension back in 2008, which we now know were utterly false.
Garver in fact says the words "at least two-year gap" according to spacepolitics. In that statement, she's acknowledging that Shuttle flight is possible after 2011. This is also a non-trivial difference between "extension" and "restart" particularly from a budgetary perspective.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kkattula on 03/05/2010 05:12 AM
Why would Lori Garver go on the record to say shuttle can't be extended, when we know that's not true. That's troubling to me.
Some people stretch the truth when they start losing an argument they are heavily invested in.  Considering her position it is definitely troubling.

It's all about context and staying on message these days:

Sure there would be a 2 year gap before a new ET could be rolled out. But don't mention the 3 partials that can be completed much sooner.

Sure some orbiter spare parts would take two years to re-order. But don't mention spare parts in stock or that can be swapped from a de-commissioned vehicle.

Sure Shuttle people told her it was too late. But maybe they qualified that in several ways: e.g "... without extra spending", "... because assets are being moved to Constellation" etc.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: jongoff on 03/05/2010 05:29 AM
I can't understand why LEO prop depots keep coming up. It's like someone trying to sell gasoline filling station franchises in 1707; it puts the cart several gigaparsecs before the horse.

Could you explain this comment? Are you claiming it would be 200 years before orbital propellant depots are useful?

Yeah, I'd be amused to see Simon's explanation too.  Once you've figured out how to transfer cryo propellants on orbit (and store/handle them), it would be pretty easy to modify existing stages to allow refueling.  There are missions that could be enabled within the next 5 years using only demo depots, not even the full-scale thing.

~Jon
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/05/2010 06:41 AM
It does not work like this:
Build a "one size fits it all" expensive BEO vehicle and a "one size fits it all" S-HLV for the next 30-40 years of exploration.

You do realise that is not what is being proposed here, don't you?
Hey clb,
I'm a bit confused, which J-xxx version did you mean when you said "One size fits all S-HLV"??


Any generic Super-HLV (yes S-HLV does not stand for Shuttle derived HLV...). But apparently some other posters seem to forget the realities right now. Orion IS proposed to be the one size fits it all spacecraft for 30 years right now and Ares V IS also proposed to be the exact same thing. People love to forget current realities and just replace them with their favorite paper rockets. Doesn't work. So yes, I was absolutely correct above talking about spiral development vs. Cx and the comment that Cx doesn't propose exactly what I was saying about "one size fits it all" is incorrect.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/05/2010 06:42 AM

P.S. ISS can be operated without the Shuttle. People seem to forget we already did that once. And since the days of 2003-2005, 2 new cargo vehicles have come online and 2 additional will come online likely next year. With STS-135 we could even wait for the first CRS vehicle to have its IOC until 2012 without a problem.

That's funny...

So the ISS is the same size as it was before, and nothing has been running since? I seem to recall a SARJ failure and a radiator delamination. Now we have a solar array mast issue and a swivel problem.

You're right...no problem waiting for 2012. (rolls eyes) 

You may first want to check out documentation on upmass requirements before making bold assertions here.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/05/2010 06:49 AM
I can't understand why LEO prop depots keep coming up. It's like someone trying to sell gasoline filling station franchises in 1707; it puts the cart several gigaparsecs before the horse.

Could you explain this comment? Are you claiming it would be 200 years before orbital propellant depots are useful?

Yeah, I'd be amused to see Simon's explanation too.  Once you've figured out how to transfer cryo propellants on orbit (and store/handle them), it would be pretty easy to modify existing stages to allow refueling.  There are missions that could be enabled within the next 5 years using only demo depots, not even the full-scale thing.

~Jon

Claims that fuel depots wouldn't revolutionize the way reference missions for deep space would be planed are simply untrue. The fact of the matter is, fuel depots negate the need for Super-HLVs of the 100mt+ nature. As such they have now become a target for those who advocate those large vehicles.

I wonder why people can't stay objective, there are two alternatives here, both are viable alternatives, one involves large rockets and big funding to redo Apollo but won't really work for a Mars mission due to launch costs, the other one uses existing rockets and slight modifications of them and new technology to go to Mars. We need to chose which one we want, but BOTH are viable proposals.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: MP99 on 03/05/2010 07:16 AM
Orion IS proposed to be the one size fits it all spacecraft for 30 years right now

I don't believe that's correct - Orion is intended as a BEO spacecraft.

However, if it's available it can provide support for ISS in the short term. This provides valuable testing with easy aborts and an on-orbit "safe haven" (per post-Columbia Shuttle safety rules) before it is committed to missions where aborts are not possible (trans-Lunar, trans-Mars, etc).

Martin
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/05/2010 07:24 AM
Orion IS proposed to be the one size fits it all spacecraft for 30 years right now

I don't believe that's correct - Orion is intended as a BEO spacecraft.

However, if it's available it can provide support for ISS in the short term. This provides valuable testing with easy aborts and an on-orbit "safe haven" (per post-Columbia Shuttle safety rules) before it is committed to missions where aborts are not possible (trans-Lunar, trans-Mars, etc).

Martin

Orion IS a "one size fits it all" spacecraft. It was and (at the moment) still is planned to be used for a. ISS flights b. lunar flights c. NEO flights d. Martian flights etc. There are a few modifications to Orion depending on the missions, but it is NOT the spiral development type of development that was originally envisioned in 2004 which I was talking about above which led to my "one size fits it all" comment.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/05/2010 07:37 AM
Any generic Super-HLV (yes S-HLV does not stand for Shuttle derived HLV...). But apparently some other posters seem to forget the realities right now. Orion IS proposed to be the one size fits it all spacecraft for 30 years right now and Ares V IS also proposed to be the exact same thing. People love to forget current realities and just replace them with their favorite paper rockets. Doesn't work. So yes, I was absolutely correct above talking about spiral development vs. Cx and the comment that Cx doesn't propose exactly what I was saying about "one size fits it all" is incorrect.

FWIW, from what I've seen of the debate so far, they are not talking about Ares-V in either of its permutations (8.4 or 10m stretched tank) but a SSET with SSMEs on the bottom to launch an Orion (in other words a J-130).  If this is true, then we're looking at a scalable launcher with IMLEO between 70t and 120t depending on the exact configuration (length of SRM and whether or not an upper stage is fitted and which type).

Given that the wording of the bill refers to NASA having a government-operated system to support ISS until commercial comes proves itself reliable, then I'm thinking that the prime payload would be something analogious to the Orion + SSPDM proposed by the DIRECT team to allow ISS maintenance and resupply.  This isn't just sticking Orion on top of a S-HLV, it is building a CCB-based archetecture with multiple applications.  Building an Ares-V of any kind to launch just Orion to the ISS would be insane and I have no trouble presuming that NASA knows this.  However, using the DIRECT team's proposed psuedo-spiral path would well meet NASA's requirements should this bill become policy.

As Ross pointed out, following this path simply moves fuel depots to after the development of the HLV.  The technology negates the need for the stretch-tank version unless you want direct cargo launch to the Moon and allows for single-launch crew lunar access and NEO missions.  It also allows commercial providers with properly-equipped upper stages to launch heavier cargoes to the Moon too, something that would make a lunar outpost much easier: Instead of just J-24x but also the EELV-Heavies, F-9H and maybe even Ariane-5 launching cargo to the Moon.  I'm pretty sure that with all that capability, landing 1kt on the Moon every year would be possible.

Now, with respect to spacecraft, the situation is somewhat different.  Orion owes much, conceptually, to Apollo.  It is, indeed, a generic orbiter/crew return vehicle.  However, with mission modules, it is adaptable to any number of different applications from Earth-orbiting maintenance missions to, conceivably, Inner Planets flyby/orbiter missions.  Does that make it inferior? Not really.  The problem with spacecraft development (and I noted this over at Space Politics once) is that whilst specialisation can improve efficiency, you also increase cost, as you need to develop different spacecraft for different tasks.  This is what made the original STS plan so unfeasably expensive.  If you maximise the utility of the spacecraft, then you reduce development costs and allow them to be focussed on mission-specific equipment instead of a unique spacecraft for each different application.  This was a guiding common design philosophy from early on in the CEV project.  It is worth noting that, given the presence of mission modules, the Orion will make up less than half of the total crewed spacecraft volume/mass at Earth departure, sometimes a lot less.

So, in conclusion: "One Size Fits All S-HLV" - Definately no.  "One Size Fits All Spacecraft" - Sort-of yes, and, to the degree it is true, not a bad thing.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/05/2010 07:41 AM
So, in conclusion: "One Size Fits All S-HLV" - Definately no.  "One Size Fits All Spacecraft" - Sort-of yes, and, to the degree it is true, not a bad thing.

Ben, the question was "spiral development" vs. current proposals. Spiral development means just that, you do one spiral after the other. A S-HLV right now isn't a spiral, it is a jump to the very end. Same thing for Orion, it's not just a LEO vehicle, it's a jump to the end.

There is a reason why spiral development was proposed, the reason is sustainability and costs. You start with little and build on that. Any incarnation of a S-HLV (bet it a DIRECT vehicle or Ares V etc.) would not be spiral development, regardless of whether you build your upper stage in parallel or in sequence. And sorry, the same applies to Orion.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/05/2010 07:48 AM
Ben, the question was "spiral development" vs. current proposals. Spiral development means just that, you do one spiral after the other. A S-HLV right now isn't a spiral, it is a jump to the very end.

Debatable.  I consider it a jump to the middle.  Having an Orion launch on, say, an EELV would be a true spiral.  This is simply cutting out the first step.

Quote
Same thing for Orion, it's not just a LEO vehicle, it's a jump to the end.

Once again, debatable.  What you are proposing isn't a spiral, it is a dead end: Build an LEO vehicle and then, later, build a BEO vehicle.  Using Orion means that you start with a BEO vehicle used exclusively in LEO and then later, as you add mission modules to the spacecraft and an upper stage to the LV, you add BEO capability.

Don't forget, on its own, Orion is not a BEO spacecraft except in its ability to tolerate the environment.  It is not until you add specific mission capabilities that it can go beyond Earth orbit and it is not until you add mission modules that it can really perform more than the most nominal missions there.

Quote
There is a reason why spiral development was proposed, the reason is sustainability and costs. You start with little and build on that. Any incarnation of a S-HLV (bet it a DIRECT vehicle or Ares V etc.) would not be spiral development, regardless of whether you build your upper stage in parallel or in sequence. And sorry, the same applies to Orion.

I do not agree with that assessment.  Starting with little is risking ending with little because funding is withdrawn from the next steps because of massive lack of interest.  I merely propose a spiral with a steeper gradient, that is all.


[edit]

Added second paragraph about the nature of Orion.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: MP99 on 03/05/2010 08:06 AM
Orion IS proposed to be the one size fits it all spacecraft for 30 years right now

I don't believe that's correct - Orion is intended as a BEO spacecraft.

However, if it's available it can provide support for ISS in the short term. This provides valuable testing with easy aborts and an on-orbit "safe haven" (per post-Columbia Shuttle safety rules) before it is committed to missions where aborts are not possible (trans-Lunar, trans-Mars, etc).

Martin

Orion IS a "one size fits it all" spacecraft. It was and (at the moment) still is planned to be used for a. ISS flights b. lunar flights c. NEO flights d. Martian flights etc. There are a few modifications to Orion depending on the missions, but it is NOT the spiral development type of development that was originally envisioned in 2004 which I was talking about above which led to my "one size fits it all" comment.

Orion is not designed for ISS supply.

Early Lunar missions will require short habitation with ~14 day Lunar loiter.

Longer Lunar missions will require short habitation with ~200 day Lunar loiter.

Mars missions will require short habitation with long periods docked to the MTV.

NEO missions may also operate in a similar mode (although dual-docked Orions have also been mentioned).

What differences are required of Orion between later Lunar / Mars / NEO missions?

Martin
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/05/2010 09:30 AM

Orion is not designed for ISS supply.
Until not that long ago Orion was supposed to do BOTH crew and cargo flights to the ISS (until 2008).

Quote
What differences are required of Orion between later Lunar / Mars / NEO missions?
The point is, why do we need the same spacecraft doing ISS flights, lunar flights, Mars flights etc.? Why not start with LEO flights and build on that?

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: MP99 on 03/05/2010 09:55 AM

Orion is not designed for ISS supply.
Until not that long ago Orion was supposed to do BOTH crew and cargo flights to the ISS (until 2008).

Quote
What differences are required of Orion between later Lunar / Mars / NEO missions?
The point is, why do we need the same spacecraft doing ISS flights, lunar flights, Mars flights etc.? Why not start with LEO flights and build on that?


??? Confused.

Block II is the exploration version.

Block I is designed to prove various sub-systems in LEO first.

Martin
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/05/2010 10:09 AM

Orion is not designed for ISS supply.
Until not that long ago Orion was supposed to do BOTH crew and cargo flights to the ISS (until 2008).

Quote
What differences are required of Orion between later Lunar / Mars / NEO missions?
The point is, why do we need the same spacecraft doing ISS flights, lunar flights, Mars flights etc.? Why not start with LEO flights and build on that?


??? Confused.

Block II is the exploration version.

Block I is designed to prove various sub-systems in LEO first.

Martin

Block I + II isn't what spiral develop is. Block I + II Orions are the same spacecrafts, only with some slight modifications. Same heatshield, same parachute systems, same everything. It's one big development effort instead of two sequential efforts. Spiral development is about setting a time period (usually 3-4 years) for an effort and getting things done in that time period, then use them and go for the next time period for the next effort.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: MP99 on 03/05/2010 11:07 AM

Orion is not designed for ISS supply.
Until not that long ago Orion was supposed to do BOTH crew and cargo flights to the ISS (until 2008).

Quote
What differences are required of Orion between later Lunar / Mars / NEO missions?
The point is, why do we need the same spacecraft doing ISS flights, lunar flights, Mars flights etc.? Why not start with LEO flights and build on that?


??? Confused.

Block II is the exploration version.

Block I is designed to prove various sub-systems in LEO first.

Martin

Block I + II isn't what spiral develop is. Block I + II Orions are the same spacecrafts, only with some slight modifications. Same heatshield, same parachute systems, same everything. It's one big development effort instead of two sequential efforts. Spiral development is about setting a time period (usually 3-4 years) for an effort and getting things done in that time period, then use them and go for the next time period for the next effort.

OK, I understand that the heatshield for Lunar re-entry has higher requirements than for LEO re-entry. But is this a major overhead for Orion over LEO-optimised & Lunar-optimised versions? I understand the latter will be heavier, and will have some knock-on effect on launch requirements. Other than that, does it cost a lot more to build a Lunar-capable heatshield for LEO ops? Does it add greatly to short-term development costs?

I'd have thought that the parachute system would depend on spacecraft mass rather than whether the earlier re-entry was from LEO or Lunar speeds. I can see that heatshield mass would have some impact here, but again I'd have though not a huge difference.

And once again, the intention here is to test Orion in a benign environment before using it for exploration missions.

I understand that the crew-taxi vehicles are much lighter than Orion, but I'm having trouble seeing how you'd create a "LEO-only" Orion that was half the mass, and yet still tests Orion in a way that's meaningful for the BEO version.

Martin
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: William Barton on 03/05/2010 11:11 AM

Orion is not designed for ISS supply.
Until not that long ago Orion was supposed to do BOTH crew and cargo flights to the ISS (until 2008).

Quote
What differences are required of Orion between later Lunar / Mars / NEO missions?
The point is, why do we need the same spacecraft doing ISS flights, lunar flights, Mars flights etc.? Why not start with LEO flights and build on that?


??? Confused.

Block II is the exploration version.

Block I is designed to prove various sub-systems in LEO first.

Martin

Block I + II isn't what spiral develop is. Block I + II Orions are the same spacecrafts, only with some slight modifications. Same heatshield, same parachute systems, same everything. It's one big development effort instead of two sequential efforts. Spiral development is about setting a time period (usually 3-4 years) for an effort and getting things done in that time period, then use them and go for the next time period for the next effort.

Rather than argue about the meaning of the phrase "spiral  development" (which does mean something specific in my part of the software development world), here's what it meant in this specific context:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/cev02044.xml

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kkattula on 03/05/2010 11:25 AM
Block I + II isn't what spiral develop is. Block I + II Orions are the same spacecrafts, only with some slight modifications. Same heatshield, same parachute systems, same everything. It's one big development effort instead of two sequential efforts. Spiral development is about setting a time period (usually 3-4 years) for an effort and getting things done in that time period, then use them and go for the next time period for the next effort.

Ok, I'm with you now. 3-4 years developments, low hanging fruit, etc.

So what you want is:

Spiral 1:  Develop J-130 and Orion, and have them start flying to ISS in 3-4 years. Get some flight experience with both while Spiral 2 is in development.

Spiral 2:  Develop JUS for J-246 and a lander over the next 3-4 years. Start flying sortie missions to the Moon while Spiral 3 is in development.

Spiral 3:  Develop Propellant Depot and Lunar Habitat over the third 3-4 years. Start long duration lunar exploration while Spiral 4 is in development.

Spiral 4:  Develop Deep Space Transfer Vehicle & propulsion over the fourth 3-4 years. Do asteroid & Phobos missions while Spiral 5 is in development.

Spiral 5:  Develop Mars Lander & over the fifth 3-4 years. Do Mars landing while Spiral 6 is in development.

etc.

Yes, I like Spirals too.  :)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/05/2010 12:01 PM
Also, unless there is Congressional buy-in, it doesn't matter whether the plan will work, or not.

Not that getting Congressional buy-in is a guarantee of success either (or we wouldn't be having this discussion).  I'm starting to wonder if the union of "can get congressional buy-in", "can get the budgets necessary", and "will actually work in practice" is actually a null set.

~Jon

I believe you are correct, Jon, about the possibility of a null set.

Archimedes famously said: "Give me a place to stand and I will move the Earth"

There may not be a place to be found within the United States that offers sufficient leverage to align all the necessary pieces to initiate the robust space exploration programs we all desire. The place to stand that offers sufficient leverage to move NASA (together with all the necessary stakeholders) might lie outside the United States.

This is why I advocate deployment of an EML-1 Gateway flagged to and operated by a small neutral power and for that facility to assist every spacefaring nation with the goal of achieving lunar surface access.

U.S. companies can make money selling "flags and footprints" to other nations using that revenue to develop our technology. To crib from General Patton: "Don't pay for space infrastructure only with our tax dollars, persuade other countries pay for our space infrastructure with their tax dollars!"

Anyway, in my opinion, winning ITAR reform and getting non-NASA destinations into LEO as soon as possible is more important than winning a NewSpace monopoly over NASA access to LEO. Don't squabble over how to divvy up NASA funding, work to make a larger pie.

I also assert that a solution which solves for three variables:

"Can get congressional buy-in", plus "at the necessary levels of funding", and "will actually work in practice"

will likely require revenue streams flowing into human spaceflight independent of what we can expect the taxpayers to pay by themselves.

Therefore, fighting with Senators over how to divvy up existing funding will not sufficiently increase funding to allow us to become spacefaring while distracting us from doing what is needful to become spacefaring.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/05/2010 12:43 PM
I can't understand why LEO prop depots keep coming up. It's like someone trying to sell gasoline filling station franchises in 1707; it puts the cart several gigaparsecs before the horse.

My sense is that prop depots are such a good idea, and well within a determined effort to achieve, and the benefits for longer missions are so great, that we should be placing a much greater priority on them.

The idea of your characterization is correct, I think, but some what exaggerated.  It's more like proposing the interstate hiway system at the beginning of WWII.  Forward thinking, doable with the tech at the time, but too forward thinking for the political establishment.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/05/2010 01:14 PM
...
I wonder why people can't stay objective...

Me too.
Not me...we're talking about humans, right?  I can aspire to being consistently objective, but I'm far from perfect.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/05/2010 01:50 PM
...
Spaceships will probably have to follow sea ships and have home port regulation.  The USA has never trusted the United Nations to act as a fair regulator.

Once a law is passed creating a regulatory body to cover private sector versions of one of the outer space items it simplifies things if the same body also regulates the rest.  The alternative of separate agencies and laws for each item would be just too complex and inefficient....

One area that can usefully be regulated is interoperability of the different types of vehicles.... Since most vehicles will probably only have a single hatch the docking systems need to be compatible.

When I talk of the US quietly dropping out of the OST, I hear comments about how premature that is, and how OST doesn't affect anything, and so forth.  But it is a problem, because it simply does not allow for private enterprise, and a new body of law will have to be developed.  The law of the sea is the obvious starting point and the best working analogy that can be used.  These matters need to have a budget line item.

I also talk of standardization, clearly along the lines of what Morning-Swallow is talking about.  Jim was telling me about the complexities of the shuttle cargo mounting attachments in some other thread.  This complexity leads to an increase in launch costs.  It's time to start designing systems such as manned and unmanned docking hatches; cargo and payload containers; standardized refillable propellant tanks, and the like.

A big part of the idea of sustainability is the idea that the costs of getting to space come down, and one way of reducing costs signeficantly is the advantage of economies of scale spread out over a free, but properly regulated market of private industry, which fairly competes to provide services and hardware.

The R&D effort needs to focus on standardization and interoperability, not on the hopes of a new propulsion system.  The game will be changed, I think, not by a sudden new invention, but by steadily working on the things we can work on, which are more demonstrably amenable to a predictable schedule and cost.  Besides, when the new propulsive invention suddenly appears, we will be in a position to utilize it.  For example, crew transfer operations thru a docking station will be ergonomically the same, no matter the propulsion system.

...
Given that the wording of the bill refers to NASA having a government-operated system to support ISS until commercial comes proves itself reliable... This isn't just sticking Orion on top of a S-HLV, it is building a CCB-based archetecture with multiple applications...

As Ross pointed out, following this path simply moves fuel depots to after the development of the HLV.  The technology negates the need for the stretch-tank version unless you want direct cargo launch to the Moon and allows for single-launch crew lunar access and NEO missions.  It also allows commercial providers with properly-equipped upper stages to launch heavier cargoes to the Moon too, something that would make a lunar outpost much easier: Instead of just J-24x but also the EELV-Heavies, F-9H and maybe even Ariane-5 launching cargo to the Moon.  I'm pretty sure that with all that capability, landing 1kt on the Moon every year would be possible...

If you maximise the utility of the spacecraft, then you reduce development costs and allow them to be focussed on mission-specific equipment instead of a unique spacecraft for each different application...

So, in conclusion: "One Size Fits All S-HLV" - Definately no.  "One Size Fits All Spacecraft" - Sort-of yes, and, to the degree it is true, not a bad thing.

Ben's thinking along the lines I'm thinking, with a much better command of the HLV sub-type nomenclature.  "Properly equipped", my bolding, is another way of talking about standardization, that is, payload standardization.  This starts suggesting that a commercial cargo provider can focus on the payload, and a commercial launch provider can focus on the rocket. The CP knows what his cost for connecting to the rocket are; it is the same for the various LP's, and he can control the interface pertaining to his cargo.  This type of specialization opens up the commercial market a great deal and also provides for predictable costs, if there is a well-regulated scheme in which to do this.

Crew launching would remain in the government domain for a while longer, largely because, and maybe only because, government can absorb the risk of ensuring crew safety.  Commercial launching is difficult enough as it stands.  Eventually, the skill set of the commercial market will include crewed launches, about the same time that the FAA accomodated the commercial crew regulatory environment.

I'm starting to wonder if the union of "can get congressional buy-in", "can get the budgets necessary", and "will actually work in practice" is actually a null set.

~Jon
...
This is why I advocate deployment of an EML-1 Gateway flagged to and operated by a small neutral power and for that facility to assist every spacefaring nation with the goal of achieving lunar surface access.
...
Anyway, in my opinion, winning ITAR reform and getting non-NASA destinations into LEO as soon as possible is more important than winning a NewSpace monopoly over NASA access to LEO. Don't squabble over how to divvy up NASA funding, work to make a larger pie.
...

Yeah, about that null set. And "flagged", my bold; OST is standing in the way of this possibility.  Most Liberian ships today are owned by private companies, and the idea is not allowed by OST.  Eventually, that "gateway" may be owned by a private company, but its first incarnation should be built by the US government, and expanded by rent paying private industry.

Make the pie larger, indeed.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Drapper23 on 03/05/2010 02:44 PM
http://english.cri.cn/6909/2010/03/05/1361s554261.htm   China is developing a new rocket with a capability to place 75 tons in low earth orbit. This is similiar to the J-130. The new rocket will be used to send Chinese astronauts to the Moon!!  "A new heavy-thrust carrier rocket is under scientific research, with the goal of sending astronauts to the moon, scientists said. Although there is no official timetable yet for China's moon landing, scientists are researching a new powerful carrier rocket with a lift-off thrust of 3,000 tons, Liang Xiaohong, vice-president of the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, told China Daily on Thursday."

"The heavy-thrust launcher's lift-off thrust will be three times that of the Long March-5, China's current largest launcher," said Liang, who is also a member of the 11th CPPCC national committee."
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: simonbp on 03/05/2010 02:44 PM
The idea of your characterization is correct, I think, but some what exaggerated.  It's more like proposing the interstate hiway system at the beginning of WWII.  Forward thinking, doable with the tech at the time, but too forward thinking for the political establishment.

Yeah, but it's more like proposing the interstate highways in 1880, twenty years before you have the first workable car, or even any idea what you would use it for. (Also, the comparable Autobahn was actually build before WWII...)

There have been a grand total of nine cis-lunar manned missions, all of them more than 35 years ago. We need to start flying missions ASAP, and then, with lessons learned, we can start building the appropriate infrastructure around those missions. Otherwise, you're left with massively too much front-end costs, and a long time before any actual return.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/05/2010 02:48 PM
I think Obama's plan was to test the technology first (possibly some of it at the ISS) before actually building the depot.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/05/2010 03:09 PM
http://english.cri.cn/6909/2010/03/05/1361s554261.htm   China is developing a new rocket with a capability to place 75 tons in low earth orbit.

The article you link to just talks about the 25ton Long March 5. There is no reference to any 75 ton vehicle in it anywhere. Liang was talking about lift-off thrust.

The "3000 ton" comment vs. 1000 ton comment for Long March 5 is also unclear. You measure thrust in Newton. Long March 5 will use 1.2MN or 0.5MN thrust engines. The total thrust of the largest variant of LM 5 (CZ-5-504) is expected to be about 10MN, probably he means that as "1000 ton".

Well anyway, Long March 5 is so far out in the future, any derivative thereafter is just pure speculation and fantasy on part of the good doctor. There are no official plans, which also is underpinned by this quote from the artilce: "Compared to the Long March-5, the heavy-thrust launcher will be more powerful, but its payload capacity is still under discussion, he said."
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mmeijeri on 03/05/2010 03:11 PM
We need to start flying missions ASAP, and then, with lessons learned, we can start building the appropriate infrastructure around those missions. Otherwise, you're left with massively too much front-end costs, and a long time before any actual return.

In that case you need a spacecraft, not a new launch vehicle.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 PM
wow, this thread got all hijacked over individual master plans for conquest of the universe.

Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/05/2010 03:28 PM

P.S. ISS can be operated without the Shuttle. People seem to forget we already did that once. And since the days of 2003-2005, 2 new cargo vehicles have come online and 2 additional will come online likely next year. With STS-135 we could even wait for the first CRS vehicle to have its IOC until 2012 without a problem.

That's funny...

So the ISS is the same size as it was before, and nothing has been running since? I seem to recall a SARJ failure and a radiator delamination. Now we have a solar array mast issue and a swivel problem.

You're right...no problem waiting for 2012. (rolls eyes) 

You may first want to check out documentation on upmass requirements before making bold assertions here.

Oh I have...

http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AIAASpace2008PaperMarkAFoster.pdf
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Patchouli on 03/05/2010 03:32 PM
I can't understand why LEO prop depots keep coming up. It's like someone trying to sell gasoline filling station franchises in 1707; it puts the cart several gigaparsecs before the horse.

I could not disagree more as the basic technology of fuel depots has been in use since the 70s on space stations.

Doing things the Apollo way by launching everything all at once has been outdated since 1977 when Salyut 6 introduced LEO refueling.
Repeating Apollo would be a pointless waste of money that would only merely replicate what a few cheap rovers can do for 10x less.

The most conservative plan that would still make sense today and not be mindlessly archaic would be to deploy hypergolic depots and use SEP tugs to move fuel and cargo out of LEO anything less would be needlessly crippling our efforts.
None of this would be radical or new technology but it would cut costs at least by a factor of two.
Using a chemical EDS and an Apollo free return type trajectory for cargo would be foolish and wasteful.

An Apollo type architecture only made sense back in the 60s as docking was a new thing fuel transfer was untested,robotic spacecraft were pure scifi, and storing human rated space hardware on orbit for 6 months was untried.

Now docking is an everyday thing ,LEO assembly is tried and tested,LEO refueling proven,robotic spacecraft are used for most of the cargo and storing a return vehicle in space for months before use is part of normal operations.

We now need to work out things like lunar ISRU ,cheaper ways of getting things out of LEO and start building an infrastructure.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 03:58 PM
Get it back on the topic of the article guys.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Patchouli on 03/05/2010 04:08 PM
I wonder if the CxP people will side with this bill it could the compromise they been looking for.

If done right it could make all involved parties happy and get us the infrastructure we need.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/05/2010 04:08 PM
Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?
On the Senate side:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723

It's up on Thomas, too.

Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 03/05/2010 04:08 PM
wow, this thread got all hijacked over individual master plans for conquest of the universe.

I've found a problem with this bill, I believe. While it provides for additional separate funding for the shuttle operations it also requires that existing ISS products currently not manifested be identified and evaluated but I do not see any funding for that task. Nor do I see any funding for any reconditioning, retesting, etc for any payloads that may be identified. Not much point in extending the shuttle if the payloads are unfunded IMO.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/05/2010 04:10 PM
wow, this thread got all hijacked over individual master plans for conquest of the universe.

I've found a problem with this bill, I believe. While it provides for additional separate funding for the shuttle operations it also requires that existing ISS products currently not manifested be identified and evaluated but I do not see any funding for that task. Nor do I see any funding for any reconditioning, retesting, etc for any payloads that may be identified. Not much point in extending the shuttle if the payloads are unfunded IMO.
Noted in the post by 51D Mascot I linked to above -- $100 million in FY 2011 and FY 2012.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/05/2010 04:14 PM
Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?
On the Senate side:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723

It's up on Thomas, too.

Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.


NO co-sponsors.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 03/05/2010 04:15 PM
Noted in the post by 51D Mascot I linked to above -- $100 million in FY 2011 and FY 2012.


Do'h, I read that post and the Bill and somehow forgot all that, must be oldtimers. <sigh>

Thanks psloss
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/05/2010 04:16 PM
ISS alone cannot possibly sustain a robust commercial crew capability (not enough flights) and yet the proposal floated February 1st seems to do little, if anything, to hasten the arrival of non-NASA destinations in LEO, or elsewhere.

And that is why I find NewSpace enthusiasm for the original February proposal to be rather odd.

The funny thing about people as a payload is that demand is very price elastic. So, if a system that can affordably fly, say, 12 people to orbit each year is available, other payloads will volunteer to fly, as well. The same cannot be said for most other payloads.

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:26 PM
Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?
On the Senate side:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723

It's up on Thomas, too.

Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.


NO co-sponsors.


I don't understand politics, so I won't get into the whys and why nots of lots of political armwaving, when they won't put their name to it (looking at you Senator Nelson). However, there's something in the article that everyone has missed, and I'm worried it's because it doesn't mean much?

Quote
This latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.

The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not so, I'm told by LM, they are against it, against losing Orion.

That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?

Politics, argh! :)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:28 PM
Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?
On the Senate side:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723

It's up on Thomas, too.

Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.


NO co-sponsors.


I don't understand politics, so I won't get into the whys and why nots of lots of political armwaving, when they won't put their name to it (looking at you Senator Nelson). However, there's something in the article that everyone has missed, and I'm worried it's because it doesn't mean much?

Quote
This latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.

The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not so, I'm told by LM, they are against it, against losing Orion.

That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?

Politics, argh! :)
I don't think the full story is out yet. Probably they are gaining sponsors right now but who knows.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Commander Keen on 03/05/2010 04:34 PM
Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?
On the Senate side:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723

It's up on Thomas, too.

Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.


NO co-sponsors.


I don't understand politics, so I won't get into the whys and why nots of lots of political armwaving, when they won't put their name to it (looking at you Senator Nelson). However, there's something in the article that everyone has missed, and I'm worried it's because it doesn't mean much?

Quote
This latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.

The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not sure, they are against it, against losing Orion.

That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?

Politics, argh! :)
I don't think the full story is out yet. Probably they are gaining sponsors right now but who knows.

I have wondered if the plan all along was to cancel Constellation in an attempt to cancel Ares only?  Everyone has stated how expensive that rocket has been to develop and its shortfalls.  Canceling CxP outright with the idea of some sort of compromise(s) after the fact, like bringing back Orion and some sort of HLV, would eliminate Ares and make everyone look good because everyone compromised.  I think that seems to be more politically pleasing by all then just canceling Ares only on the outset, if you know what I mean.  Could that be possible?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/05/2010 04:38 PM
ISS alone cannot possibly sustain a robust commercial crew capability (not enough flights) and yet the proposal floated February 1st seems to do little, if anything, to hasten the arrival of non-NASA destinations in LEO, or elsewhere.

And that is why I find NewSpace enthusiasm for the original February proposal to be rather odd.

The funny thing about people as a payload is that demand is very price elastic. So, if a system that can affordably fly, say, 12 people to orbit each year is available, other payloads will volunteer to fly, as well. The same cannot be said for most other payloads.

I agree, and I believe there is a significant market for "private pay" individuals to spend time in LEO -- if they have a destination to stay at.

If there were a non-NASA destination in LEO, I believe private industry could deliver an affordable LEO crew taxi to get customers up there.

I do not believe private industry needs taxpayer subsidies in order to develop affordable LEO crew taxis but rather we need NASA to stop putting the kibosh (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/put_the_kibosh_on) on ideas such as MirCorp and the rumored command from Mike Griffin that plans to provide Bigelow a crew taxi be halted.

The proposal NASA currently has on the table offers taxpayer funding for commercial crew to ISS however the February 1st documents suggest that non-NASA destinations (such as private Bigelow hotels and R&D labs) are desirable but will likely remain in the distant future.

This looks to me like a continuation of actions taken Goldin and Griffin, actions intended to assure that ISS remains the only human destination in LEO.

Which is why I find it odd that NewSpace is so eager to support this proposal, without modification.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/05/2010 04:39 PM
Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?
On the Senate side:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723

It's up on Thomas, too.

Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.


NO co-sponsors.


I don't understand politics, so I won't get into the whys and why nots of lots of political armwaving, when they won't put their name to it (looking at you Senator Nelson). However, there's something in the article that everyone has missed, and I'm worried it's because it doesn't mean much?

Quote
This latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.

The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not so, I'm told by LM, they are against it, against losing Orion.

That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?

Politics, argh! :)

It's been read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3068
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:40 PM
Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?
On the Senate side:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723

It's up on Thomas, too.

Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.


NO co-sponsors.


I don't understand politics, so I won't get into the whys and why nots of lots of political armwaving, when they won't put their name to it (looking at you Senator Nelson). However, there's something in the article that everyone has missed, and I'm worried it's because it doesn't mean much?

Quote
This latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.

The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not sure, they are against it, against losing Orion.

That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?

Politics, argh! :)
I don't think the full story is out yet. Probably they are gaining sponsors right now but who knows.

I have wondered if the plan all along was to cancel Constellation in an attempt to cancel Ares only?  Everyone has stated how expensive that rocket has been to develop and its shortfalls.  Canceling CxP outright with the idea of some sort of compromise(s) after the fact, like bringing back Orion and some sort of HLV, would eliminate Ares and make everyone look good because everyone compromised.  I think that seems to be more politically pleasing by all then just canceling Ares only on the outset, if you know what I mean.  Could that be possible?
It has been debated that perhaps there was a "master plan" behind all of this on Obama's part. But, I do not think that is the case. I think that he is to preoccupied to come with something like that and that he doesn't care that much. But who knows?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:41 PM
How long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take?

 Introduced Mar 3, 2010
 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
 Reported by Committee 
 Senate Vote 
 House Vote
 Signed by President
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:43 PM
How long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take?

 Introduced Mar 3, 2010
 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
 Reported by Committee 
 Senate Vote 
 House Vote
 Signed by President

Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt. Although perhaps the committee, senate, and house votes would be expidited seeing as how most of congress that cares about this appears to be enraged at the 2011 budget.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/05/2010 04:44 PM
It's been referred to committee:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3068
In the Senate only at this point.  Danderman is referring to a bill in the House.  That hasn't been introduced yet.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/05/2010 04:45 PM
How long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take?

 Introduced Mar 3, 2010
 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
 Reported by Committee 
 Senate Vote 
 House Vote
 Signed by President

It's going to take months, likely.  It's been that way in the past.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:48 PM
How long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take?

 Introduced Mar 3, 2010
 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
 Reported by Committee 
 Senate Vote 
 House Vote
 Signed by President

Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt.

Oh NOW I'm confused. What does my post have to do with "serious doubts over extension"?
Sorry for not clarifying. I am under the impression that if it takes "months" and NASA contiues under current *old* plans, too much of the workforce and infrastructure will be removed in prep for the old 2010 retirement date which would invalidiate the chance of an extension, especially one to 2015. Is this correct?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/05/2010 04:49 PM
It's been referred to committee:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3068
In the Senate only at this point.  Danderman is referring to a bill in the House.  That hasn't been introduced yet.


Yes I know, you mentioned that in your previous post. I was just providing the link for the last action on the bill in the Senate.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:49 PM
How long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take?

 Introduced Mar 3, 2010
 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
 Reported by Committee 
 Senate Vote 
 House Vote
 Signed by President

Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt.

Oh NOW I'm confused. What does my post have to do with "serious doubts over extension"?
Sorry for not clarifying. I am under the impression that if it takes "months" and NASA contiues under current *old* plans, too much of the workforce and infrastructure will be removed in prep for the old 2010 retirement date which would invalidiate the chance of an extension, especially one to 2015. Is this correct?

Sorry, I got it about a minute later, but didn't delete my post in time, oops!

Yeah, months is no good.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:49 PM
By the way, Awsome article Chris :D . When I logged on to NSF and saw that epic picture of STS-Jupiter up again I new something good had happened for a change.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:51 PM
How long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take?

 Introduced Mar 3, 2010
 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
 Reported by Committee 
 Senate Vote 
 House Vote
 Signed by President

Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt.

Oh NOW I'm confused. What does my post have to do with "serious doubts over extension"?
Sorry for not clarifying. I am under the impression that if it takes "months" and NASA contiues under current *old* plans, too much of the workforce and infrastructure will be removed in prep for the old 2010 retirement date which would invalidiate the chance of an extension, especially one to 2015. Is this correct?

Sorry, I got it about a minute later, but didn't delete my post in time, oops!

Yeah, months is no good.
Lol
"Yeah, months is no good." Nope, but it doesnt make it impossible. Just more expensive.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:53 PM
By the way, Awsome article Chris :D . When I logged on to NSF and saw that epic picture of STS-Jupiter up again I new something good had happened for a change.

Thanks! Although I do like that graphic, and probably overuse it like the Shuttle during MaxQ image ;)

Will start working the next article - probably after a processing update (Shuttle still rules the roost) - at the weekend. Have a fair amount of content to throw in and some interesting quotes. Will probably note what SSP manager John Shannon had to say about this week's events into the processing article.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:56 PM
By the way, Awsome article Chris :D . When I logged on to NSF and saw that epic picture of STS-Jupiter up again I new something good had happened for a change.

Thanks! Although I do like that graphic, and probably overuse it like the Shuttle during MaxQ image ;)

Will start working the next article - probably after a processing update (Shuttle still rules the roost) - at the weekend. Have a fair amount of content to throw in and some interesting quotes. Will probably note what SSP manager John Shannon had to say about this week's events into the processing article.
Roger that Chris. Thanks :D . Very excited for that new article, especially Mr. Shannon's comments. I imagine he is thrilled.......
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/05/2010 04:58 PM
I was looking at the 2008 NASA Authorization Act and it took exactly 5 months from the date of the introduction of the Bill to the date that it became law:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR06063:@@@R
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Mark S on 03/05/2010 04:59 PM

It's been read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3068

Looking at that committee, there are quite a few senators that would probably favor Hutchison's bill.  Hutchison herself is the ranking member, also Vitter, LeMieux, and Nelson.  I don't think Kay would have introduced this bill with the expectation that it would die in committee.

I don't know where Rockefeller stands.  Does anyone know his voting history on NASA related issues?

Mark S.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/05/2010 05:00 PM
How long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take?

 Introduced Mar 3, 2010
 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
 Reported by Committee 
 Senate Vote 
 House Vote
 Signed by President


Yeah, and it happened in this order:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6063
Quote
Occurred:    Introduced   May 15, 2008
Occurred:    Referred to Committee   View Committee Assignments
Occurred:    Reported by Committee   Jun 4, 2008
Occurred:    Amendments (13 proposed)   View Amendments
Occurred:    Passed House   Jun 18, 2008
Occurred:    Passed Senate   Sep 25, 2008
Occurred:    Signed by President   Oct 15, 2008
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Downix on 03/05/2010 05:01 PM
How long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take?

 Introduced Mar 3, 2010
 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
 Reported by Committee 
 Senate Vote 
 House Vote
 Signed by President

Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt.

Oh NOW I'm confused. What does my post have to do with "serious doubts over extension"?
Sorry for not clarifying. I am under the impression that if it takes "months" and NASA contiues under current *old* plans, too much of the workforce and infrastructure will be removed in prep for the old 2010 retirement date which would invalidiate the chance of an extension, especially one to 2015. Is this correct?

Sorry, I got it about a minute later, but didn't delete my post in time, oops!

Yeah, months is no good.
Lol
"Yeah, months is no good." Nope, but it doesnt make it impossible. Just more expensive.
Depends on a lot of things.  Truth is, can be finished by the end of next week, if it is smooth.  If it is not, could take months.

Politics is familiar territory for me, as my father was a politician.  It is not unheard of for such a maneuver to be done in anticipation of the compromize, and I think this is what is going on here.  Orion is still undergoing testing, while Ares I's follow-up tests appear to be shelved, save for the 5-seg SRB.  This lends itself to the compromize, J-140SH.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 05:09 PM
How long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take?

 Introduced Mar 3, 2010
 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
 Reported by Committee 
 Senate Vote 
 House Vote
 Signed by President

Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt.

Oh NOW I'm confused. What does my post have to do with "serious doubts over extension"?
Sorry for not clarifying. I am under the impression that if it takes "months" and NASA contiues under current *old* plans, too much of the workforce and infrastructure will be removed in prep for the old 2010 retirement date which would invalidiate the chance of an extension, especially one to 2015. Is this correct?

Sorry, I got it about a minute later, but didn't delete my post in time, oops!

Yeah, months is no good.
Lol
"Yeah, months is no good." Nope, but it doesnt make it impossible. Just more expensive.
Depends on a lot of things.  Truth is, can be finished by the end of next week, if it is smooth.  If it is not, could take months.

Politics is familiar territory for me, as my father was a politician.  It is not unheard of for such a maneuver to be done in anticipation of the compromize, and I think this is what is going on here.  Orion is still undergoing testing, while Ares I's follow-up tests appear to be shelved, save for the 5-seg SRB.  This lends itself to the compromize, J-140SH.
I agree except for the politcal maneuver part.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/05/2010 05:16 PM
Depends on a lot of things.  Truth is, can be finished by the end of next week, if it is smooth.  If it is not, could take months.
Definitely depends on a lot of things and while it's not impossible, it's very unlikely NASA's budget will be expedited.  As was clarified after it was released, this bill (focused on HSF policy) would be incorporated into the overall NASA authorization bill.  That hasn't been introduced in either chamber yet.  And it's only the authorization part of the process.  Authority to proceed would require appropriations, too, and hearings for that haven't started yet.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/05/2010 05:24 PM
I sort of wondered about that. I was under the impression that appropriations legislation contains essentially the amount of money being appropriated but it contains very little in terms of legislative directions. If an authorization bill contains wording that says that Congress wants a SD-HLV, NASA has to listen.

The Shuttle extension money is different (because it's additionnal money that is being requested on top of the regular NASA budget), a Shuttle extension might get authorized but not appropriated. If it's not appropriated, it then becomes an unfunded mandate which will be ignored by NASA.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Downix on 03/05/2010 05:27 PM
I sort of wondered about that. I was under the impression that appropriations legislation contains essentially the amount of money being appropriated but it contains very little in terms of legislative directions. If an authorization bill contains wording that says that Congress wants a SD-HLV, NASA has to listen.
Precisely.  The reason why this is announced months before the final is to give the departments involved an idea of the direction, so they can prepare.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Commander Keen on 03/05/2010 06:57 PM
Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?
On the Senate side:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723

It's up on Thomas, too.

Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.


NO co-sponsors.


I don't understand politics, so I won't get into the whys and why nots of lots of political armwaving, when they won't put their name to it (looking at you Senator Nelson). However, there's something in the article that everyone has missed, and I'm worried it's because it doesn't mean much?

Quote
This latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.

The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not sure, they are against it, against losing Orion.

That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?

Politics, argh! :)
I don't think the full story is out yet. Probably they are gaining sponsors right now but who knows.

I have wondered if the plan all along was to cancel Constellation in an attempt to cancel Ares only?  Everyone has stated how expensive that rocket has been to develop and its shortfalls.  Canceling CxP outright with the idea of some sort of compromise(s) after the fact, like bringing back Orion and some sort of HLV, would eliminate Ares and make everyone look good because everyone compromised.  I think that seems to be more politically pleasing by all then just canceling Ares only on the outset, if you know what I mean.  Could that be possible?
It has been debated that perhaps there was a "master plan" behind all of this on Obama's part. But, I do not think that is the case. I think that he is to preoccupied to come with something like that and that he doesn't care that much. But who knows?

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything.  I think that Ares doom has been written on the wall for so long and this was a way to kind of restart Constellation to keep what worked and get rid of what didn't.  Perhaps it is just wishful thinking
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/05/2010 10:20 PM
I sort of wondered about that. I was under the impression that appropriations legislation contains essentially the amount of money being appropriated but it contains very little in terms of legislative directions. If an authorization bill contains wording that says that Congress wants a SD-HLV, NASA has to listen.
Precisely.  The reason why this is announced months before the final is to give the departments involved an idea of the direction, so they can prepare.

I was going to post on this issue as well (dealing with the months ahead it would seem to take before anything gets signed into law).

We've already seen some action by Bolden (heck even the contractors). But it's like Bolden has said (in reaction to congress): he needs to go and get answers now so he can come back to them. In this case, with this bill, they are asking for the details of so many things (shuttle extension, ISS spares/logistics...).

I wonder what can be actioned NOW to get looked at BEFORE the Bill gets signed by the President?

It's clear we need these studies done NOW, not 90 days or 60 days, or even 30 days AFTER the Bill is signed. Because at the rate we're going, we'll have NO constellation, NO shuttle, NO SDHLV alternative, and nothing started on CCDev.

At least the HLV review under Constellation allowed for a halting of key aspects of SDHLV items & infrastructure. What is required now is that same level of action. I know it costs, so congress has to be told of a protection cost benefit until this is all sorted out.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: yg1968 on 03/05/2010 10:26 PM
I am guessing that some people like Senator Nelson are trying to fix the FY2011 budget from within prior to passing any legislation. That would explain why Nelson is not co-sponsoring this bill just yet. Perhaps this is where the Plan B idea is coming from. But Plan B doesn't include Shuttle extension. It only refers to accelerating the HLV according to Bolden's memo.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: SpacexULA on 03/05/2010 11:00 PM
I was looking at the 2008 NASA Authorization Act and it took exactly 5 months from the date of the introduction of the Bill to the date that it became law:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR06063:@@@R

The 2008 authorization was much less contentious that anything that can be past in this environment.

In a way the 2008 authorization was a hold the course vote.  Hold the course is not an option this year.

It will be a legislative miracle if anything get's past in the next 60 days.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/05/2010 11:17 PM
I was looking at the 2008 NASA Authorization Act and it took exactly 5 months from the date of the introduction of the Bill to the date that it became law:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR06063:@@@R

The 2008 authorization was much less contentious that anything that can be past in this environment.

In a way the 2008 authorization was a hold the course vote.  Hold the course is not an option this year.

It will be a legislative miracle if anything get's past in the next 60 days.

But you have to ask yourself...with congress spending SO MUCH of their time on the health care Bill, how much time is left for all the other legislation? It won't be long and in order to pass Bills to get re-elected (Bills that their constituents want, or *higher priority Bills), they have to rush through others. I guess it all depend how high a priority/value they want to put on the space program.

*like jobs, ect...don't go off on a tangent for me not qualifying this one.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/05/2010 11:29 PM
I was looking at the 2008 NASA Authorization Act and it took exactly 5 months from the date of the introduction of the Bill to the date that it became law:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR06063:@@@R

The 2008 authorization was much less contentious that anything that can be past in this environment.

In a way the 2008 authorization was a hold the course vote.  Hold the course is not an option this year.

It will be a legislative miracle if anything get's past in the next 60 days.
Probably a bigger question at this point is whether the groups can reach a compromise in the next 60 days.

FWIW, here's the Congressional schedule for the year (Easter break is coming up, but that's in the news about whether/when a health care vote would happen):
http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/cong_schedule.html
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: brihath on 03/06/2010 12:59 AM
WOW....This is what happens when I don't get on NASASpaceflight for five days??

Chris...excellent article!  It is good to hear that some of our legislators are pushing for a common sense approach to human spaceflight in the near term.

There are lot of positives in the proposal, such as preserving jobs, maintaining critical individual and team skills, pushing for a smooth and evolutionary transition out of shuttle ops to either another govt vehicle or commercial.  Either way, the developing transportation models get some breathing room to develop a safe and cost effective HSF alternative.

Interestingly, many of the points in this legislation mirror the some of the comments that I had the opportunity to express before the Augustine Committee at Cocoa Beach in July.  During that same gathering, I participated in two extended conversations with Wayne Hale about ISS downmass and shuttle safety.  I do not doubt that the shuttle can be flown safely for several more years if necessary, and the ISS science programs could benefit from the extra downmass capability that would be provided by the additional flights.

I hope that we can get more definition on who in the House and Senate support such legislation.  Speaking personally, I will write a letter to every one of them.

Oooops...never mind...I just saw the list on the Direct thread.  I'll get going...
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 03/06/2010 01:03 AM

The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not so, I'm told by LM, they are against it, against losing Orion.

That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?

Politics, argh! :)

LockMart *doesn't like it* because they have more to lose and less to gain.  They would have more *at risk* at a time when this isn't wise.

Also, they would likely have to buy up some little guys ... the strategic acquisition guys are very dangerous and valuations would be all over the map.

As to the competing proposals, its all politics. The further one gets away from POR, the more uncertain the politics are.

But I'm getting the impression that there is no belly in aerospace for any "game changers". Which is unfortunate for all of use. Even those who can't see past the end of their noses...
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: SpacexULA on 03/06/2010 01:06 AM
*like jobs, ect...don't go off on a tangent for me not qualifying this one.

The magic trick we can all pray for is the authorization bill for NASA get's attached to the Jobs bill during reconciliation.

A good protion of the pro HLV, pro extension argument comes down to the same justification for the Jobs bill.

Jobs(funding), Jobs(skill retention), Jobs(lift capacity).
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/06/2010 01:19 AM
wow, this thread got all hijacked over individual master plans for conquest of the universe.

I've found a problem with this bill, I believe. While it provides for additional separate funding for the shuttle operations it also requires that existing ISS products currently not manifested be identified and evaluated but I do not see any funding for that task. Nor do I see any funding for any reconditioning, retesting, etc for any payloads that may be identified. Not much point in extending the shuttle if the payloads are unfunded IMO.

Norm, the existing ISS products currently not manifested are sitting in warehouses, already packaged and awaiting flight. Some may need reconditioning, retesting, etc., as you suggest, and the bill includes (Section 9 (e))  $36million for FY 2010 (since we are IN FY 2010, that essentially "authorizes" the use of existing 2010 money, or the submission and approval of a supplemental appropriations request of that amount, if needed), and $100 million in each of FY 2011 and 2012 for the purposes of implementing the steps (outlined in Section 5) necessary to ensure the provisioning and effective use of the ISS, which would include the items currently in inventory and whatever it takes to make them useful. Those funds also are available to initiate procurement of items not now in inventory but deemed essential as a result of the required review, though the bill obviously can't "predict" the outcome of that review, so the language includes a requirement to provide an estimate of the necessary cost, schedule, etc., for those items which could then, of course, be included, for example, in the FY 2012 Budget Request, and the authorization levels adjusted accordingly, if needed, in subsequent legislation.

Remember, too, in both the President's Budget and in any multi-year authorization legislation, the numbers included in Fiscal Years beyond the year for which the Budget Request is initiated (in this case, FY 2011) are only projections. And of course, appropriations are ONLY on a year-by-year basis.  I "think" that might address the issue you raise, and it certainly is the intent behind the language in the bill. Also, if necessary, the language of an introduced bill is only a proposed law; it has to go through Committee markup (formal amendment process) where language can be, to borrow Senator Nelson's phrase quoted by someone earlier, "perfected."  That's the whole point of introducing a bill...to get it on the table for discussion, modification, if called for, etc.. That's also why folks focused on how many cosponsors or who either are or are not on the bill (and Senators can request to be added as co-sponsors any time after introduction, and that can be done by simple unanimous consent request, by the way) are raising an issue that is not really an issue; not to say it's not helpful going in, or useful at any stage, but it's just not essential until it becomes a matter of getting the bill reported to the floor. I've seen many bills with a majority of members co-sponsoring them that never saw the light of day again, for any number of reasons.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/06/2010 01:32 AM
http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2010/03/virginia-says-yes-to-nasa-commercial.html

"The Virginia General Assembly, bucking recent political trends in the more traditional space states, has passed resolutions in the House of Delegates and the Senate  affirming support for the NASA FY 11 budget submitted by the White House and backed by NASA Administrator Charles Bolden."

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Harold KSC on 03/06/2010 02:41 AM
If that's the best they can manage, it shows a complete lack of political support for the Obama plan.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/06/2010 05:53 AM
By the way, Awsome article Chris :D . When I logged on to NSF and saw that epic picture of STS-Jupiter up again I new something good had happened for a change.

Thanks! Although I do like that graphic, and probably overuse it like the Shuttle during MaxQ image ;)

Will start working the next article - probably after a processing update (Shuttle still rules the roost) - at the weekend. Have a fair amount of content to throw in and some interesting quotes. Will probably note what SSP manager John Shannon had to say about this week's events into the processing article.
Roger that Chris. Thanks :D . Very excited for that new article, especially Mr. Shannon's comments. I imagine he is thrilled.......

We had big STS-134 news (actually that's sort of related to this all when you consider current schedule closeout), but I still included Mr Shannon's comments. He's very poker face as per usual:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/sts-131-into-frrs-sts-134-meetings-large-ams-delay/

Quote
Ironically, the potential slip to STS-134 comes at a time when lawmakers are pushing for a large extension to the shuttle’s operational lifetime, a drive which was acknowledged – at least by way of asking his teams to remained focus on the job in hand – by Mr Shannon.

“There are many stories in the news, as there always are. This time it seems they are more focused on our team (SSP). The best thing we can do is to continue to operate excellently as we have been, keep putting together outstanding vehicles with no problems in flight, and keep hitting our launch windows,” Mr Shannon added to the Standup report.

“The team has been doing a wonderful job of that. We just need to keep it up, and keep our heads down, and we will see where the country wants this team to go.”
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kkattula on 03/06/2010 06:34 AM
Odd that Mr Shannon did not point out that it's too late to extend Shuttle. ;)

Maybe "...where the country wants this team to go.” only refers to SDLV or unemployment. Maybe not.

I don't suppose Mr Shannon could go on the record with his opinion on Shuttle extension?
Or did he at A-Com?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bubbinski on 03/06/2010 07:06 AM
If they do a swap, launch STS-133 in July, and push STS-134 into 2011, could the program approve STS-135 and slip it into the fall 2010 time frame? 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/06/2010 07:59 AM
If they do a swap, launch STS-133 in July, and push STS-134 into 2011, could the program approve STS-135 and slip it into the fall 2010 time frame? 

The problem is, STS-135 is under consideration as a 4-crew flight with a Soyuz rescue scenario. STS-134 can't be done with a minimum crew complement of 4. That means you would have to revise all your Soyuz rescue scenario plans to fit for STS-134.

The more interesting possibility I see would be to add STS-135 + two additional flights until end of FY2011/start of FY2012 as part of a compromise with Congress. If STS-134 really slips well into 2011 (not just FY2011) due to AMS problems, this extension would even be a "cheap" compromise for NASA. This compromise could also be fueled - at least politically - if the first Falcon 9 is launched off-nominal.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/06/2010 12:05 PM
The more interesting possibility I see would be to add STS-135 + two additional flights until end of FY2011/start of FY2012 as part of a compromise with Congress. If STS-134 really slips well into 2011 (not just FY2011) due to AMS problems, this extension would even be a "cheap" compromise for NASA. This compromise could also be fueled - at least politically - if the first Falcon 9 is launched off-nominal.
Certainly feasible, but the same issues about money that come up in this thread would apply.  (Either bumping up NASA's top line for Shuttle or taking the additional $1.2 billion out of somewhere else in NASA's budget -- and kicking the $400 million for Shuttle retirement down the road.)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Justin Space on 03/06/2010 12:10 PM
If they do a swap, launch STS-133 in July, and push STS-134 into 2011, could the program approve STS-135 and slip it into the fall 2010 time frame? 

The problem is, STS-135 is under consideration as a 4-crew flight with a Soyuz rescue scenario. STS-134 can't be done with a minimum crew complement of 4. That means you would have to revise all your Soyuz rescue scenario plans to fit for STS-134.


I won't breach L2 rules so can't quote other parts from STS-134/133 planning memos out of L2 Chris didn't use in the article, but your statement of fact there is wrong. It "might" not be workable, but to say it "can't" be done is an error.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: clb22 on 03/06/2010 12:26 PM
The more interesting possibility I see would be to add STS-135 + two additional flights until end of FY2011/start of FY2012 as part of a compromise with Congress. If STS-134 really slips well into 2011 (not just FY2011) due to AMS problems, this extension would even be a "cheap" compromise for NASA. This compromise could also be fueled - at least politically - if the first Falcon 9 is launched off-nominal.
Certainly feasible, but the same issues about money that come up in this thread would apply.  (Either bumping up NASA's top line for Shuttle or taking the additional $1.2 billion out of somewhere else in NASA's budget -- and kicking the $400 million for Shuttle retirement down the road.)


AMS is a Congress mandated payload. And the STS program funding is more or less tied to the number of months the program gets extended. So, if AMS slips considerably, then Congress will have to pony up the funds to make STS-134 happen or drop AMS from the manifest. Any other flights would then just be an add-on funding wise.

Regarding STS-134 requiring more than a crew complement of 4, well I was talking about practical execution of the mission, not about theoretical mission limits.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/06/2010 12:34 PM
AMS is a Congress mandated payload. And the STS program funding is more or less tied to the number of months the program gets extended. So, if AMS slips considerably, then Congress will have to pony up the funds to make STS-134 happen or drop AMS from the manifest. Any other flights would then just be an add-on funding wise.
Agree on the mandate -- the President has also verbally committed to flying out the current manifest.  Given the Administration's proposal though, they were expecting that to be done no later than the end of this year, and that appears to be in some jeopardy now.  They may prefer to spend the money elsewhere and that may become part of the upcoming closed-door negotiations.

But if Washington doesn't fund Shuttle any more, AMS would go on the unfunded mandate pile.  There are lots of projects like that.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/06/2010 01:40 PM
Norm, the existing ISS products currently not manifested are sitting in warehouses, already packaged and awaiting flight.

And to think that they were seriously considering ditching the ISS, with all this stuff ready to go.  And the reasons for that consideration were pretty sketchy, by all accounts.

This is the kind of intentional waste that just steams me.  This particular one was averted, but so much effort is just wasted effort.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/06/2010 02:31 PM
More links.

Op-ed piece from Senator Hutchison in the Houston Chronicle:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6899722.html

Another story on the Lori Garver breakfast talk from a couple of days ago:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100305-garver-battle-obama-plan-imperils-nasa-budget.html
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/06/2010 02:46 PM
AMS is a Congress mandated payload. And the STS program funding is more or less tied to the number of months the program gets extended. So, if AMS slips considerably, then Congress will have to pony up the funds to make STS-134 happen or drop AMS from the manifest. Any other flights would then just be an add-on funding wise.
Agree on the mandate -- the President has also verbally committed to flying out the current manifest.  Given the Administration's proposal though, they were expecting that to be done no later than the end of this year, and that appears to be in some jeopardy now.  They may prefer to spend the money elsewhere and that may become part of the upcoming closed-door negotiations.

But if Washington doesn't fund Shuttle any more, AMS would go on the unfunded mandate pile.  There are lots of projects like that.


Dr. Ting will move heaven and earth to make sure that AMS flies, regardless of whether its a few months late. Even if AMS is delayed until 2011, Congress will pay for the ride.

The question is why AMS, after years of engineering, is still having problems.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/06/2010 02:48 PM

The question is why AMS, after years of engineering, is still having problems.


Because it never went through its final phase of testing.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: renclod on 03/06/2010 03:23 PM
More links.

Another story on the Lori Garver

Warden Garver uncovers the hatchet, how nice.

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jim on 03/06/2010 03:29 PM

Warden Garver uncovers the hatchet, how nice.


Hatchet of what?  Shuttle?  It was terminated before Garver.  Constellation?  It collapsed on itself.  It was the right decision to terminate it.

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: renclod on 03/06/2010 04:49 PM
Hatchet of what? 

Threatening to cut budget if the restless in Congress don't follow indications by the letter. Is the top NASA political appointee supposed to be a menace ?

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Analyst on 03/06/2010 05:23 PM

Norm, the existing ISS products currently not manifested are sitting in warehouses, already packaged and awaiting flight. Some may need reconditioning, retesting, etc., ...

I really wonder what these existing ISS products are. Surely no components only the Shuttle can launch, e.g. no new modules, truss segements, racks (all cancelled), maybe a handful of large external ORUs (but no solar array wing).

Probably we are talking countless small spare parts, from cables to valves to computers to other subsystems: Nothing you want to store on orbit en masse, for practical and stowage reasons. Something you have some replacements already on orbit and you launch new ones as needed. And surely not 10 Shuttle loads. If (big if) they are really there: Where do you want to store them?

Some specifics are welcome.

Analyst
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: SpacexULA on 03/06/2010 05:43 PM
Hatchet of what? 
Threatening to cut budget if the restless in Congress don't follow indications by the letter. Is the top NASA political appointee supposed to be a menace ?

Congress swung the hatchet years ago, Garver is only pointing out that unless the hatchet is stopped NASA will loose BIG.

The EASIEST thing for Congress to do at this point is to just let the hatchet fall, leave POR intact, let Shuttle fly out it's missions and let ISS splash in 2015, leave COTS, CRS as is.  They can do this with only continuing motions.

Our choices at this point are continuing motion, which kills Shuttle AND ISS, and has us riding on Soyuz until Ares 1 comes online some time in 2350, or a budget increase while EVERYONE is wanting to cut the budget for the election year.

When the choice for Congress is between the easy and reasonable, reasonable rarely wins the day.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: spacedem on 03/06/2010 05:55 PM
Hatchet of what? 

Threatening to cut budget if the restless in Congress don't follow indications by the letter. Is the top NASA political appointee supposed to be a menace ?



Where the heck are you getting this?

Quote
“Think of it this way: If you are focused on getting the Constellation budget continued in the future — and I harbor no ill will against those of you who do … but if Constellation is put back in the budget without that $5 billion-a-year increase, where will we cut the budget?”

All Garver is saying is that you can't have both the current proposed projects and keep Constellation as well.  That's not a threat, it's just the truth.

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mmeijeri on 03/06/2010 05:57 PM
I'm reminded of a discussion that James Baker allegedly had with Tareq Aziz before the first Gulf War: he said the US wouldn't hesitate to use nuclear weapons if the Iraqis used chemical weapons. And to avoid confusion he added that this wasn't a threat but a promise.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/06/2010 06:41 PM

Norm, the existing ISS products currently not manifested are sitting in warehouses, already packaged and awaiting flight. Some may need reconditioning, retesting, etc., ...

I really wonder what these existing ISS products are. Surely no components only the Shuttle can launch, e.g. no new modules, truss segements, racks (all cancelled), maybe a handful of large external ORUs (but no solar array wing).

Probably we are talking countless small spare parts, from cables to valves to computers to other subsystems: Nothing you want to store on orbit en masse, for practical and stowage reasons. Something you have some replacements already on orbit and you launch new ones as needed. And surely not 10 Shuttle loads. If (big if) they are really there: Where do you want to store them?

Some specifics are welcome.

Analyst

Pictures below were posted on an other thread you may have missed; these are just a) one half of one aisle of maybe a dozen of one warehouse at KSC and b) one corner of an adjacent one. I have a list provided by NASA which identifies general categories, etc., stored in a total of five warehouses, and from which the total of 1400 was given. Many--maybe even all--of these items are likely able to be flown aboard non-shuttle carriers (ATV, HTV, Dragon/COTS, etc.,). The point is, that fact is as yet undocumented; nor is the answer to the question of what additional may be needed for sustainability beyond 2015. It is assumed (but needs to be documented as well) that the existing items were based on a planned termination of ISS operations at 2015; information is needed as to what the additional requirements are for extended operations through 2020. Both of these questions are precisely what the review required by the bill is intended to determine, so that there is a good understanding of transportation requirements that are expected to be needed between the end of the current manifest and 2020, at a minimum.

Items you describe as having been canceled MAY need to be looked at again to see if that was the right thing to do, given the fact that going to 2020 is DOUBLING the remaining planned period of ISS operations--not to mention the still as yet unknown utilization rate for research. NASA is currently--and for the past five years only planning--on "subscribing" to use 47% of the available US research facility allocation. "Full utilization" means DOUBLING that as well, which is the sort of thing that changes little details like assumptions about logistics, spares and ORU requirements. The legislation just says we need those answers.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: renclod on 03/06/2010 06:59 PM

Where the heck are you getting this?


>>> Garver warned that infighting imperils NASA’s proposed budget growth — ...

“ If we are not successful with this budget, I think there is a very real risk that the growth that is proposed in this budget — $19 billion for 2011 — will not be sustained if we aren’t able to come together at some point over the next few months and work toward the common ground,” she said.<<<


Clearly threatening there.

Oh, and a "subtlety" :

>>> “But we did recognize, absolutely, when folks are invested, some literally, in existing programs, it’s very hard for them to see change as positive.” <<<

 

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mr_magoo on 03/06/2010 07:15 PM
Yes, it's a warning that the money is being tasked for a specific purpose.  That it's not being presented as some general endowment to fuel everyone's private space (jobs) ambitions.

Congress can call the bluff but relying on congress to plus up every WH NASA budget doesnt seem like a winning play for NASA fans.

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: spacedem on 03/06/2010 07:37 PM

>>> Garver warned that infighting imperils NASA’s proposed budget growth — ...

“ If we are not successful with this budget, I think there is a very real risk that the growth that is proposed in this budget — $19 billion for 2011 — will not be sustained if we aren’t able to come together at some point over the next few months and work toward the common ground,” she said.<<<


Clearly threatening there.


I disagree.  I think you're reading your chosen narrative into her words, and it seems like quite a stretch from this side of the screen.

Quote

Oh, and a "subtlety" :

>>> “But we did recognize, absolutely, when folks are invested, some literally, in existing programs, it’s very hard for them to see change as positive.” <<<

That's not a subtlety.  It's also not threatening, it's simply factual.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/06/2010 07:57 PM
I just caught this quote from the Feb 24 Congressional hearings, and I don't think it was posted to the thread about the hearings:

"Let me commend you and the Administration for taking a bold step to deal with space issues. The fact is that Republicans love to talk about cutting down government waste but whenever it comes down to actually cutting something, or redirecting resources away from government bureaucracy in the areas of space or defense, we end up not being on the side of the angels. I would suggest that your Administration has tried to take an honest approach to looking at what NASA is all about. The goal of NASA should not be maintaining the NASA science bureaucracy. We just spent $9 billion on the Constellation project and have almost nothing to show for it, and there about five or six other projects that can say the same thing. We're talking about billions and billions of dollars with nothing to show for it. I'm pleased that this Administration is willing to step up to the plate and try to challenge this and say, 'Let's see if the private sector can come up with alternatives that save us some money.'"

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, R-Long Beach
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/06/2010 08:00 PM
That's the same Congressman who, only last year, grilled NASA about why they aren't using anti-gravity engines.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/06/2010 08:01 PM

Norm, the existing ISS products currently not manifested are sitting in warehouses, already packaged and awaiting flight. Some may need reconditioning, retesting, etc., ...

I really wonder what these existing ISS products are. Surely no components only the Shuttle can launch, e.g. no new modules, truss segements, racks (all cancelled), maybe a handful of large external ORUs (but no solar array wing).

Probably we are talking countless small spare parts, from cables to valves to computers to other subsystems: Nothing you want to store on orbit en masse, for practical and stowage reasons. Something you have some replacements already on orbit and you launch new ones as needed. And surely not 10 Shuttle loads. If (big if) they are really there: Where do you want to store them?

Some specifics are welcome.

Analyst

Yeah, we don't call these "products", but rather "ORUs". There has been a boatload of work done at JSC to analyze which can be flown by Progress, ATV or HTV, or the COTS vehicles.

I suspect that at least 95% can and will be flown by vehicles other than Shuttle. Maybe 99%. I can't think of what is the 1% that can't be flown on anything but Shuttle, given that HTV can carry Pump Modules.
 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/06/2010 08:01 PM
That's the same guy who was asking, only last year, why NASA wasn't using anti-gravity engines.

Ross.

The point is that there is support for Obama's new policy on both sides of the aisle.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/06/2010 08:06 PM
There is always a "Walter Mondale".   Only, Walter understood the difference between facts and fiction sufficiently well to earn himself a little credibility behind his arguments.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/06/2010 08:23 PM

I suspect that at least 95% can and will be flown by vehicles other than Shuttle. Maybe 99%. I can't think of what is the 1% that can't be flown on anything but Shuttle, given that HTV can carry Pump Modules.
 

Yeah, here's that wonderful HTV spacecraft arguement again. We're asking A LOT from it when it's supposedly to be used for flying science for JAXA's exposed facility.

We'll just wait to see if a review on ISS requirements & existing ORUs comes back with some definitive answers. Some seem to think that this space station is built and will work perfectly without any unforeseen issues over the years. We'll see.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/06/2010 08:29 PM
Yeah, we don't call these "products", but rather "ORUs". There has been a boatload of work done at JSC to analyze which can be flown by Progress, ATV or HTV, or the COTS vehicles.

I suspect that at least 95% can and will be flown by vehicles other than Shuttle. Maybe 99%. I can't think of what is the 1% that can't be flown on anything but Shuttle, given that HTV can carry Pump Modules.

One of the key problems is ANNUAL lift capacity.

ISS was designed to handle an annual lift capability (actual delivered useful payload, not including "carriers") in the order of 90mT per year, delivered by a combination of 5x Shuttle (50,000kg), 2x Progress (4,700kg), 2x ATV (7,700kg) and 2x HTV (12,000kg) working together.


But with Shuttle leaving the picture, the remaining Progress, ATV, HTV -- and now including both of the CRS suppliers -- are only going to be able to deliver around 40mT each year, combined.

That's a shortfall EVERY YEAR of around 50mT less payload which will be delivered to ISS compared to what was originally planned.

In other words, over the next 10 years of ISS life, 500 tons of payload which was planned to be lofted, now, will not be.

A great deal of what you're looking at in 51D's pictures is still never going to fly with the current plans.   The simple fact remains that Shuttle was supposed to be delivering over 50% of all cargo to ISS every year.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/06/2010 08:53 PM
Whoaaaa ... the analysis below does not actually correspond to any reality I know of. According to the ISS Evolution Databook, back in 2000, the flight rate of ATV, for example, was once every 18 months, not twice a year. HTV was never factored at 2x per year, either.

As for the Shuttle "lifting" 50,000 kg to ISS every year, that is not the same as delivering 50,000 kg of logistics to ISS per year, as probably more than 50% of all Shuttle missions were for assembly. Perhaps ISS might receive some fraction of that this year.

So ignoring the misinformation below, it would be best to rely on the figures the ISSP uses for logistics post 2010. And yes, HTV WILL carry ISS ORUs.



One of the key problems is ANNUAL lift capacity.

ISS was designed to handle an annual lift capability (actual delivered useful payload, not including "carriers") in the order of 90mT per year, delivered by a combination of 5x Shuttle (50,000kg), 2x Progress (4,700kg), 2x ATV (7,700kg) and 2x HTV (12,000kg) working together.


But with Shuttle leaving the picture, the remaining Progress, ATV, HTV -- and now including both of the CRS suppliers -- are only going to be able to deliver around 40mT each year, combined.

That's a shortfall EVERY YEAR of around 50mT less payload which will be delivered to ISS compared to what was originally planned.

In other words, over the next 10 years of ISS life, 500 tons of payload which was planned to be lofted, now, will not be.

A great deal of what you're looking at in 51D's pictures is still never going to fly with the current plans.   The simple fact remains that Shuttle was supposed to be delivering over 50% of all cargo to ISS every year.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kkattula on 03/06/2010 09:00 PM
...
So ignoring the misinformation below, it would be best to rely on the figures the ISSP uses for logistics post 2010. And yes, HTV WILL carry ISS ORUs.

So what are the figures ISSP use for logistics post 2010?

Do they include ISS extension past 2015?

Do they assume 47% science utilization?

Are they in fact based on what CAN be lifted, rather than what should?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Drapper23 on 03/06/2010 09:05 PM
Bolden Chat With Neil Armstrong & Plan B   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/35709113#35709113  http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100304-bolden-ask-johnson-space-center-for-plan.html   Listen to Jay Barbee's comments about the connection between NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden's recent conversation with Apollo 11 Astronaut Neil Armstrong & Plan B!  Jay Barbree is the long-time space reporter for NBC News
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/06/2010 09:25 PM
...
So ignoring the misinformation below, it would be best to rely on the figures the ISSP uses for logistics post 2010. And yes, HTV WILL carry ISS ORUs.

So what are the figures ISSP use for logistics post 2010?

Do they include ISS extension past 2015?

Do they assume 47% science utilization?

Are they in fact based on what CAN be lifted, rather than what should?


The ISSP takes reality into account when making their logistics assumptions, yes. 

You will recall that for a couple of years, 2003-2005, ISS got by with just Progress. Now that ATV, HTV and COTS are added to Progress, ISS will do just fine for logistics without Shuttle.

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/06/2010 09:48 PM
So what are the figures ISSP use for logistics post 2010?

Do they include ISS extension past 2015?

Do they assume 47% science utilization?

Are they in fact based on what CAN be lifted, rather than what should?
Not sure it answers your questions, but ISS Program Manager Mike Suffredini did an overview of where things stood from an ISS CRS standpoint during the first Augustine Commission session in June last year.  The presentation slides are here:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/meetings/06_17_meeting.html

(At the time, resupply was only considered through 2015.)

If you haven't seen it, it's probably worth watching the video or reading the transcript (links on the page above, also), as the presentations are only in Powerpoint form.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/06/2010 09:53 PM
Danderman,
I can't believe that you seriously think ISS can get by with only 40-45% of its original delivery capability, and still manage to fulfill the expectations as laid out by the Obama budget to increase the science output for the laboratory to 'full capacity' levels.

Your argument is so grossly flawed, in so many different ways, that I really don't even know where to start...   And for those who know me, for me to throw my hands in the air and just walk away like that, should be a clear sign of just how ridiculous an argument I consider this to be.

I'm going to simply leave you to your beliefs -- you are very welcome to them.   I just pray that other readers here are coy enough to avoid buying into them, or we're all in trouble.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/06/2010 09:59 PM
...
So ignoring the misinformation below, it would be best to rely on the figures the ISSP uses for logistics post 2010. And yes, HTV WILL carry ISS ORUs.

So what are the figures ISSP use for logistics post 2010?

Do they include ISS extension past 2015?

Do they assume 47% science utilization?

Are they in fact based on what CAN be lifted, rather than what should?


The ISSP takes reality into account when making their logistics assumptions, yes. 

You will recall that for a couple of years, 2003-2005, ISS got by with just Progress. Now that ATV, HTV and COTS are added to Progress, ISS will do just fine for logistics without Shuttle.



This is the classic "head in the sand" syndrome.  ISS did not "get by" well.  The crew was reduced, most of the work was maintenance to keep the station operational

While you are correct now we have ATV and HTV, the station as a whole is much more complex and can do much more.  In addition the crew is between 5 and 6 people.

If the Station will do ok without Shuttle, what is the point of "commercial" that you have so fought for on this board?  The fact is, ISS was always meant to be supplied by Shuttle and ATV, HTV and Progres were meant to suppliment that capability.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/06/2010 10:13 PM
This is the classic "head in the sand" syndrome.  ISS did not "get by" well.  The crew was reduced, most of the work was maintenance to keep the station operational
Didn't the food run down on Expedition 10 to within a couple of weeks of having to bring that 2-person crew home?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Serafeim on 03/06/2010 10:19 PM
Quote
2x ATV (7,700kg) and 2x HTV (12,000kg)   
what? ???    atv has more payload than Htv...
with vasimr on iss(powered by waste hydrogen) in 2012-2013 some tonnes of fuel is saved...
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: zerm on 03/06/2010 10:19 PM
Indeed Rohrabacher is a great example of well informed support for the Obama budget- he's the one who walked into the hearings while they were talking about STEM programs and interjected his long-standing position about stemcell research... He did not even know what the subject of the hearing was- he just came in and spouted off (out of order as I seem to recall).

Yeah Danderman... Rohrabacher is a great example- please use him often.

I believe he was the one... 1... congress person out of 25 who spoke in two days of hearings who was totally in favor of the Obama budget.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/06/2010 11:21 PM
This is the classic "head in the sand" syndrome.  ISS did not "get by" well.  The crew was reduced, most of the work was maintenance to keep the station operational

While you are correct now we have ATV and HTV, the station as a whole is much more complex and can do much more.  In addition the crew is between 5 and 6 people.

If the Station will do ok without Shuttle, what is the point of "commercial" that you have so fought for on this board?  The fact is, ISS was always meant to be supplied by Shuttle and ATV, HTV and Progres were meant to suppliment that capability.

You are absolutely correct in that ISS did just get by when reduced to Progress logistics. Now that ATV and HTV are on line and COTs is coming, ISS will be able to do more than just get by without Shuttle.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mmeijeri on 03/06/2010 11:30 PM
And if necessary ATV and HTV can be launched on a Delta IV-H.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mr_magoo on 03/06/2010 11:40 PM
I assume the full utilization budget is meant to fund increased supply flights to ISS.   I would think that the four cargo systems can handle that but if not it's on NASA to speak up if that is insufficient.  All Ive heard to date is that Bolden doesnt want a shuttle increase as he'd rather spend that money elsewhere.

Previously ISS was looking at a smaller budget coupled with five years without shuttle.  Was there no plan?  Somehow I doubt that.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/07/2010 12:10 AM
This is the classic "head in the sand" syndrome.  ISS did not "get by" well.  The crew was reduced, most of the work was maintenance to keep the station operational

While you are correct now we have ATV and HTV, the station as a whole is much more complex and can do much more.  In addition the crew is between 5 and 6 people.

If the Station will do ok without Shuttle, what is the point of "commercial" that you have so fought for on this board?  The fact is, ISS was always meant to be supplied by Shuttle and ATV, HTV and Progres were meant to suppliment that capability.

You are absolutely correct in that ISS did just get by when reduced to Progress logistics. Now that ATV and HTV are on line and COTs is coming, ISS will be able to do more than just get by without Shuttle.


Prove it.  When will they be online?  What exactly will be there capacity and capability?  What will the Russians ultimately charge or crew transport for American, Japanese, European and Canadian astronauts, that the US taxpayer will be forced to pay?

What if additional ATV's and HTV's are required?  Who will pay for them?  The Japanese and European governments?  Not likely....

So again, prove to me that ISS will be able to do more than just get by
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/07/2010 12:18 AM
Prove it.  When will they be online?  What exactly will be there capacity and capability?  What will the Russians ultimately charge or crew transport for American, Japanese, European and Canadian astronauts, that the US taxpayer will be forced to pay?

What if additional ATV's and HTV's are required?  Who will pay for them?  The Japanese and European governments?  Not likely....

So again, prove to me that ISS will be able to do more than just get by

The ISSP has had 6 years to plan for the End of Shuttle, and you can bet that they have the logistics chain pretty well mapped out.

The larger question is: let's say that I am wrong. So, what? There is no alternative for the next five years anyway, unless you are suggesting reviving Shuttle and flying at a very limited rate over the next 3 years.

BTW, what great plan do you have in mind to deter the Russians from raising the price for Soyuz lifeboat services?

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/07/2010 12:25 AM
Seriously, what WAS the plan from 2011 to 2015 without the Shuttle? I mean, we've known for years that Shuttle was going to be retired in 2010, so did no one have a plan?

Why does it take 50 tons a year of cargo? What makes up the bulk of that? Food? Water? Oxygen? Experiments? Clothing? ORUs? I fail to see how with effective recycling and electrolysis more than 20 tons annually of food, water, and clothing is needed even for 6 people (and they should be able to get by with half that).

I am nominally in favor of some kind of Shuttle extension, but how was ISS going to get by between 2011 and 2015 before ISS was extended?

Is it not possible to increase the rate of cargo missions?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/07/2010 12:26 AM
Prove it.  When will they be online?  What exactly will be there capacity and capability?  What will the Russians ultimately charge or crew transport for American, Japanese, European and Canadian astronauts, that the US taxpayer will be forced to pay?

What if additional ATV's and HTV's are required?  Who will pay for them?  The Japanese and European governments?  Not likely....

So again, prove to me that ISS will be able to do more than just get by

The ISSP has had 6 years to plan for the End of Shuttle, and you can bet that they have the logistics chain pretty well mapped out.

The larger question is: let's say that I am wrong. So, what? There is no alternative for the next five years anyway, unless you are suggesting reviving Shuttle and flying at a very limited rate over the next 3 years.

BTW, what great plan do you have in mind to deter the Russians from raising the price for Soyuz lifeboat services?



You can take that bet if you want.  You'd lose...of that I am absolutely sure.

Typically, when someone then starts asking "larger questions", it is when they are beginning to see they have no basis for anything they have said and their true agenda is beginning to show.

If there is no "alternative" for the "next 5 years anyway" then their is no business even continuing in Station.  Why are your precious "commercial" providers going to invest their own money in something, by the time their vehicles actually fly, won't be in the same state anyway?  Surely you have an answer for that because "everything is going to be fine".  Right?  Or is that just an assumption on your part?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Mark S on 03/07/2010 12:28 AM
The larger question is: let's say that I am wrong. So, what? There is no alternative for the next five years anyway, unless you are suggesting reviving Shuttle and flying at a very limited rate over the next 3 years.

Did you even read the title of this thread?  Or the Senate bill to which it refers?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/07/2010 12:54 AM
The larger question is: let's say that I am wrong. So, what? There is no alternative for the next five years anyway, unless you are suggesting reviving Shuttle and flying at a very limited rate over the next 3 years.

Did you even read the title of this thread?  Or the Senate bill to which it refers?

The Senate bill is just the opening bid of a negotiation.


Let me put it this way:

The ISSP has designed a logistics plan for ISS for the period of 2011 - 2015. There is a nominal plan, and there are contingencies in case a vehicle malfunctions.

Shuttle is not going to be extended until 2015, and it is not a factor in the ISSP plans after next year.

ISS will not fall out of the sky after Shuttle retires. There is no need to play Chicken Little here. ISS has survived without Shuttle in the bad old days when there was no ATV, no HTV and no COTS. It will do just fine.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Harold KSC on 03/07/2010 01:00 AM
It's a bit desperate when the commercial guys here use examples of possible price hikes on Soyuz rescue for shuttle extension, when the proposed plan holds far (massively) more reliance on Soyuz for over half a decade.

It's the same as claiming his bill has no support, when announcing the New Mexico (Commercial Spaceport for suborbital tourism) and other the guy who wants anti-gravity engines are a sign of support for Obama's plan.

It's also the same as looking at 51D's photo of vast stocks of ISS supplies and saying you don't need shuttle as it could go up on resupply vehicles, when you forget the up and downmass of shuttle compared to those vehicles, which are also allocated for their specific agency needs (JAXA-HTV. Progress-Russia. ATV-ESA), so unless you want to spend billions on purchases 20 vehicles to carry out the role of a couple of orbiters....

I respect the commercial guys are fighting their corner, but I'm not seeing a valid argument. And for the record, I'm not shuttle, I moved to Constellation.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/07/2010 01:04 AM
I assume the full utilization budget is meant to fund increased supply flights to ISS.   I would think that the four cargo systems can handle that but if not it's on NASA to speak up if that is insufficient.  All Ive heard to date is that Bolden doesnt want a shuttle increase as he'd rather spend that money elsewhere.

Previously ISS was looking at a smaller budget coupled with five years without shuttle.  Was there no plan?  Somehow I doubt that.

A couple of GAO reports that refer to NASA ISS resupply and utilization plans.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: marsavian on 03/07/2010 01:06 AM
The larger question is: let's say that I am wrong. So, what? There is no alternative for the next five years anyway, unless you are suggesting reviving Shuttle and flying at a very limited rate over the next 3 years.

Did you even read the title of this thread?  Or the Senate bill to which it refers?

The Senate bill is just the opening bid of a negotiation.


Let me put it this way:

The ISSP has designed a logistics plan for ISS for the period of 2011 - 2015. There is a nominal plan, and there are contingencies in case a vehicle malfunctions.

Shuttle is not going to be extended until 2015, and it is not a factor in the ISSP plans after next year.

ISS will not fall out of the sky after Shuttle retires. There is no need to play Chicken Little here. ISS has survived without Shuttle in the bad old days when there was no ATV, no HTV and no COTS. It will do just fine.



Yeah, it had a skeleton crew of 2 then and no science done. Might as well deorbit it then and carry on with Cx which is the current law of the land until there is proper bilateral agreement otherwise. Bolden and Garver are going to lose this game of chicken ;).
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Edward Carlson on 03/07/2010 01:11 AM
On the way ISS went downhill, Chris quoted the testimony when that SSP manager spoke to Senator Nelson, which was awesome with a capital A.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/02/ssp-balance-between-shuttle-legacy-hlv-advancement/
Quote
“For the sake of the Space Station, all that money we have spent on getting it up there, we can’t just walk away from it until we know how we’re going to support it. Look what happened to the Station during the Columbia RTF phase. We went from three crew to two crew (who were mainly) carrying out maintenance – just enough to keep the Station operational.

“Today, the Station has five or six people onboard, with many more labs and much more complex. We have ATVs and HTVs, but they were always meant to be in support of the orbiters, so I can’t logically see how – if we take the orbiter out of the loop – we think everything’s going to be fine.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/07/2010 01:15 AM
On the way ISS went downhill, Chris quoted the testimony when that SSP manager spoke to Senator Nelson, which was awesome with a capital A.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/02/ssp-balance-between-shuttle-legacy-hlv-advancement/
Quote
“For the sake of the Space Station, all that money we have spent on getting it up there, we can’t just walk away from it until we know how we’re going to support it. Look what happened to the Station during the Columbia RTF phase. We went from three crew to two crew (who were mainly) carrying out maintenance – just enough to keep the Station operational.

“Today, the Station has five or six people onboard, with many more labs and much more complex. We have ATVs and HTVs, but they were always meant to be in support of the orbiters, so I can’t logically see how – if we take the orbiter out of the loop – we think everything’s going to be fine.

That was Mike Snyder.  He's not the SSP Manager but a good guy nonetheless and was clearly right.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/07/2010 01:21 AM

Let me put it this way:

The ISSP has designed a logistics plan for ISS for the period of 2011 - 2015. There is a nominal plan, and there are contingencies in case a vehicle malfunctions.

Shuttle is not going to be extended until 2015, and it is not a factor in the ISSP plans after next year.

ISS will not fall out of the sky after Shuttle retires. There is no need to play Chicken Little here. ISS has survived without Shuttle in the bad old days when there was no ATV, no HTV and no COTS. It will do just fine.


So what is this well thought out plan?  Clearly you know.  Right?

You keep saying the same old thing here again and again but cannot elaborate any further.  Why is that?

As for Shuttle until 2015, no one needs to advocate that anyway.  After all, Shuttle can retire when the "commercial" providers are there.  They will be there when advertised, right?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Orbiter on 03/07/2010 01:46 AM
The thing that always bugs me with Bolden is that he says that he's excited about the new direction, how its ambitious and all the flaws with Constellation. He's excited about NASA going absolutely no were but into the political playing cards of Congress? Obama seems more excited and interested in using NASA to play Global Warming unfortunately. How will the plan look if SpaceX and Orbital have (god forbid)  a horrific failure of some sort? Bolden needs this 'plan B', NASA needs an HLV.

Orbiter
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/07/2010 02:46 AM
How will the plan look if SpaceX and Orbital have (god forbid)  a horrific failure of some sort? Bolden needs this 'plan B', NASA needs an HLV.

Its very likely that some of the early Falcon and Taurus launches will have a bad day. However, just like when the Shuttle had a bad day, SpaceX and Orbital will find the problem and fix it.

When Shuttle failed, no one was saying that we needed to replace it with HLV, were they?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/07/2010 02:53 AM
So Danderman, are these "bad days" that SpaceX and Orbital will "very likely" have part of the plan that you suggest is there?  Will ISS still do ok?  If so, then why are they anymore necessary than Shuttle, which you claim is not required?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/07/2010 02:59 AM
So Danderman, are these "bad days" that SpaceX and Orbital will "very likely" have part of the plan that you suggest is there?  Will ISS still do ok?  If so, then why are they anymore necessary than Shuttle, which you claim is not required?

Its real simple. The ISSP takes into account the possibility of any visiting vehicle having a bad day. There are several ways to do this, by providing a margin of logistics by pre-positioning ORUs and crew provisions, by scheduling more logistics flights than minimum requirements, and of course, by having a robust fleet of multiple systems.

Its more than likely that any bad day that SpaceX or Orbital will have would be early in development, a period when ISS will contain a built up supply of logistics delivered by Shuttle during its last flights.

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/07/2010 03:03 AM
If there were plenty of upmass available, ISSP wouldn't be begging for any scrap of upmass they can get on the last couple of Shuttle logistics flights.  But they are.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/07/2010 03:07 AM
When Shuttle failed, no one was saying that we needed to replace it with HLV, were they?

Columbia -> VSE/Shuttle retirement -> ESAS -> Ares I/V.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/07/2010 03:10 AM
So Danderman, are these "bad days" that SpaceX and Orbital will "very likely" have part of the plan that you suggest is there?  Will ISS still do ok?  If so, then why are they anymore necessary than Shuttle, which you claim is not required?

Its real simple. The ISSP takes into account the possibility of any visiting vehicle having a bad day. There are several ways to do this, by providing a margin of logistics by pre-positioning ORUs and crew provisions, by scheduling more logistics flights than minimum requirements, and of course, by having a robust fleet of multiple systems.

Its more than likely that any bad day that SpaceX or Orbital will have would be early in development, a period when ISS will contain a built up supply of logistics delivered by Shuttle during its last flights.



I see.  So, we're stripping the vehicles to provide every pound of upmass possible, because.....the Station is going to be in such great shape when we stop flying?  Right....

So anyway, when is the "robust fleet" going to be available?  I note you never answer that.  How are you so confident that the "well provisioned supplies" will be sufficient in the absence of you being able to give an absolute and concrete date for the "robust fleet of multiple systems"?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/07/2010 03:18 AM
So Danderman, are these "bad days" that SpaceX and Orbital will "very likely" have part of the plan that you suggest is there?  Will ISS still do ok?  If so, then why are they anymore necessary than Shuttle, which you claim is not required?

Its real simple. The ISSP takes into account the possibility of any visiting vehicle having a bad day. There are several ways to do this, by providing a margin of logistics by pre-positioning ORUs and crew provisions, by scheduling more logistics flights than minimum requirements, and of course, by having a robust fleet of multiple systems.

Its more than likely that any bad day that SpaceX or Orbital will have would be early in development, a period when ISS will contain a built up supply of logistics delivered by Shuttle during its last flights.



I think you are forgetting that, according to NASA, there will be a 40 metric ton shortfall in logistics after shuttle retirement, between 2010 and 2014--that's taking into account ALL items delivered in the remaining flights, and ALL planned or available capacity from ATV/HTV and Progress (through 2011). The "plan" is to use COTS to make up for that shortfall. If they are delayed, or worse, it would undoubtedly have an impact on operations and support, as that "shortfall" will have no way of being addressed. It is simply not possible to support your claim that all will be well, especially when those projections are still based on a 50% maximum utilization of ISS research capacity. Any increase demand for utilization beyond that current planned use--as the budget claims is planned, and even money has been allocated for that purpose--will only make that shortfall, if unmet, create a direct negative impact on available scientific activity for however long that COTS delay may take. The ISSP you keep quoting is outdated and does not factor in more recent developments in generating increased interest in making use of ISS research facilities by NIH, USDA, potentially NSF, and a number of private sector research entities, based on a year-long study JUST COMPLETED and being briefed to NASA HQ. Those are all part of the reason the bill requires a CURRENT assessment of available spares, ORUs, delivery capabilities, and not one based on projections from ten years ago.  There has also been ten years of on-orbit experience with and improved understanding of Mean Time Between Failures which has to be factored in (along with the results of mitigation efforts undertaken to try to extend time between failures, such as different cycling of equipment usage, etc.) plus an ongoing stress monitoring system now in place and which, by the way, is expected to take at least TWO MORE YEARS to have high confidence in the analysis of the data and reach new conclusions. ALL of those factors are the basis for the required assessment that is outlined in the Hutchison bill, and ALL of them are based on NASA and/or GAO assessments made within the last three years. Responsible decision-making requires--demands--the best information available, not projections based on assumptions no longer valid. Not sure why you seem to insist all that is irrelevant, but would be happy to hear a more complete justification for your assertions.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Orbiter on 03/07/2010 03:29 AM
How will the plan look if SpaceX and Orbital have (god forbid)  a horrific failure of some sort? Bolden needs this 'plan B', NASA needs an HLV.

Its very likely that some of the early Falcon and Taurus launches will have a bad day. However, just like when the Shuttle had a bad day, SpaceX and Orbital will find the problem and fix it.

When Shuttle failed, no one was saying that we needed to replace it with HLV, were they?


You gotta look at it from the general public view. There was no space station to sustain in 86. In 2003 there was, look what happened, and the ISS was like what, 40% Completed? Not even that?

It was just apparent to those out there who semi-care about the space program for 2 seconds that the new moon landings were canceled and we just got rid of shuttle for nothing, and given it all the commercial and Russia. The way the news is portraying it any chance of possibly going into space in the next 40 years is by just those two. If Falcon fails, or Taurus fails... well I think you can get the picture.

Orbiter
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/07/2010 03:34 AM
There is no alternative for the next five years anyway, unless you are suggesting reviving Shuttle and flying at a very limited rate over the next 3 years.

You seem to have very selective memory loss.   You're conveniently forgetting the solutions which have been talked about here OFTEN in the last few months, solutions which can be operational in FY2013, only 3 years from now:-

* Orion can be operational in 3 years.

* SD-HLV (Jupiter-130) can also be operational in 3 years.

* Shuttle can be extended by 3 years using only hardware stocks which are already in the inventory.   And that extended program would share some of its costs with the Jupiter Development and Test Flight Programs, which makes the two efforts cost less when working in parallel.


But never mind all of these inconvenient facts, you have an argument to make.   All of this information runs contrary to your personal world-view, so you choose to "stick your head in the sand" as OV-106 correctly stated.

You seem determined to acknowledge none of these things.   The problem is, the information is "out" already, for all to see.   With that, your argument holds no water at all.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mr_magoo on 03/07/2010 03:43 AM
I'd just like to add that the budget lists an additional $2 billion dollars for utilization through 2014 and that it includes:

Quote
Potential objectives include reducing demands on
crew time, lowering ground-based costs, mitigating capabilities lost when the Shuttle retires, improving ISS
capabilities, improving ISS safety, and supporting activities benefiting future human spaceflight programs.

So someone, somewhere has at least considered this issue.   I don't know if that means having additional non-cots supply capsules built or what it might mean.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/07/2010 03:46 AM
Note the words "potential objectives".  People have considered it and the absolute conclusion is we're in bad shape if we continue down this path. 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/07/2010 03:48 AM
First off, the Shuttles will fly packed with ORUs and consumables, precisely because its the intention of the ISSP to preposition as much as possible on ISS.

Secondly, I have been speculating for some time now that there will be some sort of limited Shuttle extension, if only to bring up an extra MPLM or two. Not, mind you, the full extension that some here are demanding, but I would not be surprised to see Shuttle flying up to the next Presidential election.

Lastly, concerning the "40 ton" shortfall of logistics, yeah, that's the reason why we have a COTS program, to address that market. In a perfect world, it would all be available for private companies to deliver, but as I state above, the Shuttle may cut into that a bit, mostly for political reasons. I also expect the COTs providers to be later than promised, so if the Shuttle flies a couple of extra times while COTs gets ready, so be it.

Sooner or later, though the space Single Payor program will end in favor of private enterprise taking over the function of space transportation.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/07/2010 03:54 AM
Oh for goodness sake Danderman, now you are just getting silly.  Clearly your thoughts are extremely rigid and a bit extreme.  Me and others are not here to defend a "Single Payer" system and to keep private enterprise down.  It is just that your thoughts are so limited and so myopic that, unfortunately, is all you see.

So now you admit the COTS players will be later than expected, which of course is already history.  For those of us that actually think strategically, we have simply said extend Shuttle until those vehicles prove themselves.  Simple as that.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: woods170 on 03/07/2010 10:25 AM
Back on topic: the fact that COTS players are overdue on their promises is nothing new. When was the last time any player (either commercial or government) delivered the goods (that either be a launcher, cargo-vessel or crewed vehicle) on time? Answer: never. If there is one consistency in both manned and unmanned spaceflight: systems always arrive much later than originally promised.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/07/2010 12:04 PM
Obama plans space 'summit' in Florida in April:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-obama-nasa-space-summit,0,2635621.story
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100307/NEWS0204/3070319/Obama-to-talk-space-in-Florida-visit

As a side note on timing of legislation going through Congress, the Florida Today article has bit on that:

Quote
The timing of the conference is good because it will occur before a key Senate science subcommittee votes on NASA's budget in May, said Nelson, who heads the subcommittee.

(That would be a vote on the authorization bill.)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Orbiter on 03/07/2010 12:37 PM
Quote
"What I asked the president to do is to announce the goal of Mars, which they have indicated that he will, and then to flesh that out while setting a reasonable time frame and then how they would proceed with the architecture," Nelson said. "If you're going to Mars, you have to have a heavy-lift vehicle.''

Sounds to me that Obama's going to do a desperate version of JFK's moon speech to build a better consensus towards the new plan, a sign that the new plan is unraveling in Congress imho. Both sides of the political spectrum are battling the new plan.

Orbiter
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/07/2010 02:56 PM
The ISSP you keep quoting is outdated and does not factor in more recent developments in generating increased interest in making use of ISS research facilities by NIH, USDA, potentially NSF, and a number of private sector research entities, based on a year-long study JUST COMPLETED and being briefed to NASA HQ.

Interesting. Any chance we can see this document? (or for anyone who has it and can pass it on to Chris for inclusion in L2)  :)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/07/2010 03:41 PM

(1) The ISSP has had 6 years to plan for the End of Shuttle, and you can bet that they have the logistics chain pretty well mapped out.

(2) The larger question is: let's say that I am wrong. So, what? There is no alternative for the next five years anyway, unless you are suggesting reviving Shuttle and flying at a very limited rate over the next 3 years.

(3) BTW, what great plan do you have in mind to deter the Russians from raising the price for Soyuz lifeboat services?

(1)  Rather than "you bet", I would have said, "One would have hoped".  Not too long ago, people were seriously talking about de-orbiting the ISS.  Maybe that talk points to the lack of logistic planning more than anything else.

(2)  I tend to agree with the idea that when "larger questions" are subsequently raised, that the first idea probably wasn't all that well thought out either.

(3) For someone to object to your reasoning is not then to conclude that they have a "great plan" of their own.  Rather this is a re-framing of the question which seems to point to some other personal agenda.  Also, there's a time for betting, as in, I would bet that the Russians aren't going to lower their fees.

Seriously, what WAS the plan from 2011 to 2015 without the Shuttle? I mean, we've known for years that Shuttle was going to be retired in 2010, so did no one have a plan?

Yeah, what was the plan?

Sooner or later, though the space Single Payor program will end in favor of private enterprise taking over the function of space transportation.

I think that's true, tho the operative term may be "later".

Termology like "for goodness sake" ...

Just direct the remarks to me.  They don't mind. Hardy har har.

If this quote from Nelson is correct: "If you're going to Mars, you have to have a heavy-lift vehicle.", then that seems to explain this incessant need for an HLV.  That's what the big boys want, and that's what the big boys will get, it seems to me.  Hopefully it will be a Jupiter variant; and reasonably priced; and designed for a fifty year lifespan, so that we can get on with HSF without having to constantly reinvent Saturn V.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/07/2010 03:50 PM
"If this quote from Nelson is correct: "If you're going to Mars, you have to have a heavy-lift vehicle.", then that seems to explain this incessant need for an HLV.  That's what the big boys want, and that's what the big boys will get, it seems to me.  Hopefully it will be a Jupiter variant; and reasonably priced; and designed for a fifty year lifespan, so that we can get on with HSF without having to constantly reinvent Saturn V. "

I doubt they will get ares V, ares 1, or Saturn V replica. I think more likely it will be SD hlv jupiter or otherwise. I have no doubt that KBH will be there and will probably present her plan to everyone.

"That's what the big boys want, and that's what the big boys will get, it seems to me. "

But that is the real question isn't it? I think this summit might be more of a pr show. Look at the health care summit. Did any bipartisanship result from that? Not as far as I can see. Is that because Obama really did not use ideas from the other side? Maybe, perhaps they are simply fed up with him.

But can you see how this applies to the space summit? The congress guys are fed up with him. Will he listen to them? I dont know. What will happen if he doesnt? I don't know. Its possible that he could find a way to force through something that does not include hlv. But this is a far different game than the Health Care.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mr_magoo on 03/07/2010 04:24 PM
Well, if he follows the health care summit model then he will incorporate some minor ideas as he did after the summit.  And he already has some options from Nelson.

Interestingly,  Nelson is for (just) a single additional shuttle mission.

Quote
Among them: add an additional shuttle flight to the final four missions already planned, commit to a crewed mission to Mars and make NASA responsible for a heavy-lift vehicle -- such as the Ares rockets being developed under Constellation.

"We're going to have to see what he says," Nelson said.

Which may or may not reflect on his opinion of the KBH bill.

The meeting is characterized as a conference by spaceref.

Quote
Specifically, the conference will focus on the goals and strategies in this new vision, the next steps, and the new technologies, new jobs, and new industries it will create. Conference topics will include the implications of the new strategy for Florida, the nation, and our ultimate activities in space

So a presidential sales job backed by "top officials and space leaders".   
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/07/2010 04:44 PM
When I say, "re-inventing Saturn V", I don't mean building a replica.  Instead, I mean to point out that 110mt of payload equals 110mt of payload.  Further, for all intents and purposes, 110mt ~ 95mt ~ 125mt.  The payload doesn't care what shape vehicle it's being launched on.  I care, and we care, that not enough payload is being launched.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Andy USA on 03/07/2010 07:04 PM
Specific thread for the Obama summit:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20769.0
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Tim S on 03/08/2010 12:43 AM
When I say, "re-inventing Saturn V", I don't mean building a replica.  Instead, I mean to point out that 110mt of payload equals 110mt of payload.  Further, for all intents and purposes, 110mt ~ 95mt ~ 125mt.  The payload doesn't care what shape vehicle it's being launched on.  I care, and we care, that not enough payload is being launched.

Ares V would have provided all we needed, right through to the Mars missions.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 03/08/2010 01:00 AM
When I say, "re-inventing Saturn V", I don't mean building a replica.  Instead, I mean to point out that 110mt of payload equals 110mt of payload.  Further, for all intents and purposes, 110mt ~ 95mt ~ 125mt.  The payload doesn't care what shape vehicle it's being launched on.  I care, and we care, that not enough payload is being launched.

Ares V would have provided all we needed, right through to the Mars missions.

Too bad we couldn't afford it..  was 33' core REALLY necessary?

Since Ares V was no longer "shuttle derived".. Wouldn't Kerolox have made more sense for the MOAR(Mother of all rockets)?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/08/2010 01:45 AM
Oh goodness, let's not start THAT debate again...
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/08/2010 09:25 AM
@ TrueBlueWitt, Robertross,

Maybe we shouldn't start the debate again but TBW's point is relevant.  If you are not developing a D-SDLV, then you are best off starting with a clean sheet of paper rather than trying to shoehorn old stuff into a new mold.  The modifications, for example, to get a suboptimal version of an existing engine are as expensive and time-consuming (or more so) than just building a new engine from scratch.

SDLV only makes sense if it is truely shuttle-derived.  Otherwise, the costs and delays rapidly make it not worth the putitative job retention.  This, more than anything else, is the lesson of CxP.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Xentry on 03/08/2010 12:45 PM
This is clearly evidence that at least some people think time has come to start negotiating with the White House on NASA. I find Bill Nelson's remarks very interesting, and honestly hope that a consensus will emerge which is close to what he suggests.
Maybe we can start bets on what strategy will come out of this negotiating process! Here's mine: cancel STS after an extra couple of missions (in 2011?), make sure to re-negotiate CxP contracts in order to end up with the earliest, cheapest SD-HLV available (certainly not Ares), keep the Moon goal as early as possible (early 2020s?), keep CCDEV, and start doing the technology R&D which is essential to perform things like L1/L2/lunar bases, deep space missions, and Mars missions in the near future, and which NASA does best: ISRU, inflatable modules, Aerocapture, Advanced Propulsion, Nuclear Power plants. Ah, and at least show some effort to line up a few Demo missions for the above technologies...
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/08/2010 01:08 PM
I think much of the R&D will have to go if they decide to extend shuttle and develop an HLV. Inflatable modules are nice, but not necessary.
What's critical is automated rendezvous and docking (for on orbit assembly of larger structures like interplanetary craft and stations), on orbit fuel transfer (not necessarily storage depots, just supply rockets to stations and spacecraft), USRI (I think everyone agrees on this), radiation shielding (really important one).
Anything else that manages to survive the budget reevaluation would be a bonus.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/08/2010 01:17 PM
@ TrueBlueWitt, Robertross,

Maybe we shouldn't start the debate again but TBW's point is relevant.  If you are not developing a D-SDLV, then you are best off starting with a clean sheet of paper rather than trying to shoehorn old stuff into a new mold.  The modifications, for example, to get a suboptimal version of an existing engine are as expensive and time-consuming (or more so) than just building a new engine from scratch.

SDLV only makes sense if it is truely shuttle-derived.  Otherwise, the costs and delays rapidly make it not worth the putitative job retention.  This, more than anything else, is the lesson of CxP.

The only lessons learned were that politics and personal agendas have pushed us back into a corner and we are facing some critical decisons.

If we are truly serious about ISS (to 2020 or beyond), then that is goal #1 to support and come up with a solution. We know there are concerns AND issues with shuttle extension.

So we can do clean sheet on HLV and all our exploration alternatives, but what will we end up with? The same political and personal agendas and we will be forced to realize we just wasted another 10 years going in circles. This is, more than anything, just a game to some. We went from one extreme to the other, and now we face a seemingly hopeless decision for the future: abandon all now for 'potential' long term savings at the expense of existing assets and capabilities, or do we make the best of what we have, learn the lesson of not throwing away hard fought and earned capabiltities.

This Bill is in essence the culmination of the belief that it is foolhearty to give up on something that is a perfectly acceptable way to get crew and cargo to orbit, and build upon it, so we don't lose ground at this critical stage. You want clean sheet design, well let them design it, but don't give up on what you already have in some vain attempt to re-invent the wheel. The wheel exists, let's work with it. Always time to go back and build another wheel so long as you have one that works now.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Drapper23 on 03/08/2010 01:18 PM
"The timing of the conference is good because it will occur before a key Senate science subcommittee votes on NASA's budget in May, said Nelson, who heads the subcommittee." I find this comment extremely revealing.  It suggests that Senator Nelson already knows that the Obama Space Summit will include an announcement that he will accelerate the HLV development. If Nelson was uncertain about what Obama was going to announce in Florida on April 15, why would he want the Space Summit to occur before his Subcommittee vote in May.  Finally, there is a slight possibility that Nelson already knows that Obama will stick to his original plan & not accelerate HLV development on April 15. In that situation Nelson would use the Obama April 15 Summit to increase support in his Subcommittee for major changes in the President's NASA 2011 budget proposal. Either way, it seems to me Nelson & his Subcommittee gain from the Presidential summit!
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Xentry on 03/08/2010 01:36 PM
I think much of the R&D will have to go if they decide to extend shuttle and develop an HLV. Inflatable modules are nice, but not necessary.
Agree, inflatable modules are not crucial as are other items you mention, but especially for bases as well as for a Mars trip they might well prove handy to provide lots of habitable space.
What's critical is automated rendezvous and docking (for on orbit assembly of larger structures like interplanetary craft and stations),
Sorry, I forgot that the US doesn't have the technology yet... ;D
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/08/2010 01:39 PM
Agree, inflatable modules are not crucial as are other items you mention, but especially for bases as well as for a Mars trip they might well prove handy to provide lots of habitable space.

Hopefully Bigelow will come through on that part. Aerocapture would be really good to develop also, but I don't know how far up the priority list that is.

Edit
Just to add something on topic.

Considering the summit is about a month away might we get lucky and the white house and congress will reach a consensus by then? Or am I being way too optimistic?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/08/2010 01:41 PM
If Nelson was uncertain about what Obama was going to announce in Florida on April 15, why would he want the Space Summit to occur before his Subcommittee vote in May.
So that those subcommittees in the House and Senate could incorporate changes to the authorization bill based on these discussions before it is voted on.  If the bill was passed by the respective committees before the summit and sent to the floor, there's a chance it would have to be substantially changed based on what happens at the summit.  (Assuming the summit/conference is productive.)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Xentry on 03/08/2010 03:16 PM
Just to add something on topic.
Considering the summit is about a month away might we get lucky and the white house and congress will reach a consensus by then? Or am I being way too optimistic?
Not being an expert on the issue, I'd say Obama would be pretty close to suicidal if he went to Florida without some kind of agreement in Congress. I honestly think he'll do everything to have a consensus by then; and there are many representatives/senators who are pretty desperate to save jobs in their districts/states and have already seen the writing on the wall, and if they don't act fast enough, many of those HSF jobs will be permanently lost.
I also think an agreement by April is not impossible, given the current state of events.
CCDEV is all but guaranteed now; I think/hope Ares is dead; Shuttle is too expensive to fly until 2015.
On the other hand the exploration goals and dates are still up in the air (is Bill Nelson really expecting Obama to shoot for Mars?!?).
As far as I can tell from the news, the central issues are now whether and how an SD-HLV and a NASA manned capsule (Orion?Orion-lite?something else?) will be funded going forward, and how much of the tech R&D/Demo budget will be gone as a result. But I have no idea whether a a budget increase is either necessary for this or even feasible.
Interesting times...
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: jimgagnon on 03/08/2010 04:26 PM
The only lessons learned were that politics and personal agendas have pushed us back into a corner and we are facing some critical decisons.

If we are truly serious about ISS (to 2020 or beyond), then that is goal #1 to support and come up with a solution. We know there are concerns AND issues with shuttle extension.

With the GAO forecasting a 40 mT shortfall in ISS provisions should SpaceX and Orbital not fulfill their contracts for supply flights (and SpaceX is currently late), certainly it would be prudent to draw up a full set of scenarios on the spectrum of possibilities, including the disaster one of no Shuttle, no commercial flights, and a failure of one of our international partners.

However, in the event of this disaster scenario, no one expects the ISS to shut down. Science will be curtailed, but the investment in the station will be preserved. Frankly, situations such as this will be much easier to handle once there are a few telepresence Project M robots on board the ISS; with them, even a catastrophe that would require station evacuation would still leave us the ability to operate the station and effect repairs.

This Bill is in essence the culmination of the belief that it is foolhearty to give up on something that is a perfectly acceptable way to get crew and cargo to orbit, and build upon it, so we don't lose ground at this critical stage. You want clean sheet design, well let them design it, but don't give up on what you already have in some vain attempt to re-invent the wheel. The wheel exists, let's work with it. Always time to go back and build another wheel so long as you have one that works now.

The problem with the Hutchinson bill concerning the HLV aspect is that it requires a decision within six months, before any research on orbital refueling can be conducted. The ease of space refueling will directly impact the kind of heavy lift capability needed in the long term; the choice of launchers really should be made once we have more information.

I already know the objections: if we don't act soon, we'll lose the possibility of building a SD-HLV. That leads to the next problem with the Hutchinson bill: by putting a premium on acting quickly, it really tips the table towards SD-HLV when that architecture has real issues with cost containment. I've yet to meet anyone who feels that LH2/LOX is the most economical propellant to use for a first stage; also, with the SRBs being singled sourced (from ATK), there's no possibility of competition to drive their costs down. As this is a launch architecture we're likely to live with for thirty years or more, doesn't it make more sense to do it right as opposed to quickly?

Compare as Bolden's team has a SD-HLV against the other HLV that can happen relatively quickly: the Atlas V Heavy. With a max lift of 140mT, and the added benefit of the ACES flexible Centaur coming along with it, it would not only serve as the platform for a HLV but for orbital tugs, refueling stations and a lunar lander. That's a lot of bang for the buck, which SD-HLV/Direct can't match.

The Hutchinson bill is bad legislation because it forces us to chose quickly. If we can build a competitive market for LEO launches, there's a good chance we can do the same for heavy lift. It's important that legislatively we don't do anything to preclude such a market from forming. If a SD-HLV is to be built, the technology should first be transferred to a private company that then has to compete with everyone else on costs and capabilities. To have government operating what has essentially become a commodity is a mistake.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Analyst on 03/08/2010 04:48 PM
Having a HLV won't help with ISS supply, at least not in the critical timeframe from 2010 to 2015. And even then you need a heavy spacecraft. There is no match. People should realize this. ISS does not need a HLV. To the contrary: Development of a HLV is bad for ISS, in particular for ISS science.

So HLV is not needed for ISS, nor for science missions like the magical big telescopes, nor for DoD. It may be needed for BEO HSF, only. Constructing other reasons does not chance this.

Analyst
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Serafeim on 03/08/2010 04:52 PM
Hlv is needed for Beyond earth orbit exploration first,and after that for bigger telescopes like hubble to lagrange points etc..
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Analyst on 03/08/2010 05:00 PM
JWST is "Hubble to Lagrange point." It does not need a HLV.

Analyst
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/08/2010 05:10 PM
Post removed and my apologies to Analyst for letting this get personal, no matter how much I dislike his negative philosophy towards all things space.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/08/2010 05:12 PM
Some interesting points on here, and I agree with Analyst's HLV requirements.

Also remember we have a thread and article for HLV and telescopes, per Flexible Path: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19975.0
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: woods170 on 03/08/2010 05:17 PM
JWST is "Hubble to Lagrange point." It does not need a HLV.

Analyst

Correct, JWST is scheduled for launch on a plain old ordinary Ariane 5.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: woods170 on 03/08/2010 05:17 PM
Post removed and my apologies to Analyst for letting this get personal, no matter how much I dislike his negative philosophy towards all things space.

Not negative, realistic.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Analyst on 03/08/2010 05:18 PM
JWST doesn't need an HLV because none was available, so it had to be designed and built to be launchable by EELV.

I know that you hate this but it is true - if a heavier launcher was available, then large space telescopes would be easier and cheaper and, guess what? Money would be found to fund them, no matter how much that would enrage you.

Sounds like religion not backed by any facts, wishful thinking. To the contrary: It would be not easier but harder and more expensive. And money would be harder to be found than for smaller missions. This is reality today and has been for the last 50 years.

You are free to believe what you want. Does not make it correct.

And hate or enrage do not enter into it. Keep it unemotional.

Analyst
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/08/2010 05:19 PM
Post removed and my apologies to Analyst for letting this get personal, no matter how much I dislike his negative philosophy towards all things space.

Not negative, realistic.

Simply not my viewpoint.

Somewhat ironic that I, who am often described as being cynical, is so much more optimistic about what people would be willing to do if the option to do so is there.  Maybe Analyst's "Can't, won't, mustn't" viewpoint is more realistic but, if that is so... isn't that a tragedy?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/08/2010 05:19 PM
I'd like us to be in a position where we need something like a HLV to loft a better telescope, but we haven't even hit the limits of our current EELVs. JWST is coming close, but it isn't in the full visible or near-UV spectrum, so it doesn't much surpass Hubble in its max angular resolution. If we're launching multiple large telescopes on guppy EELVs, then we need an HLV. But we're not there, yet. I wish we were. I wish the money was there to pay for a few 10-meter wide-spectrum (IR-visible-UV, like Hubble) telescopes and an HLV and an exploration program and the ISS and tech development needed to go to Mars. I actually think that Obama's budget funds the most critical portions needed. It's not worth cutting your technology development to the bone (thank you, Constellation) just to develop a new EELV-class launcher. DIRECT isn't a bad compromise, but Obama's budget is far better than Constellation.

But I think our telescope money is better spent on launching an IR-visible-UV telescope at least 6 meters in diameter on a guppy EELV (I've heard of fairing sizes 7 meters in diameter are possible on EELVs). Heck, with on-orbit refueling, we can send this telescope anywhere we want, ESL2, EML2, etc.

EDIT: And while I agree with Analyst on this point, it's true that he does have a sort of pessimistic take on a lot of spaceflight ideas, IMHO. Of course, he would say it's just a realistic perspective. No disrespect! ;) It's good for people to have their wild optimism tempered a little, just as it's good for the pessimists to cheer up a bit. :)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/08/2010 06:56 PM
Post removed and my apologies to Analyst for letting this get personal, no matter how much I dislike his negative philosophy towards all things space.

Not negative, realistic.

Simply not my viewpoint.

Somewhat ironic that I, who am often described as being cynical, is so much more optimistic about what people would be willing to do if the option to do so is there.  Maybe Analyst's "Can't, won't, mustn't" viewpoint is more realistic but, if that is so... isn't that a tragedy?
Its not so. After what we have and are seeing in congress? But I agree with him on the telescopes. JWST cost ASTRONOMICAL amounts of money and delays. Exactly how many years has it been in development? Unless you could find a way to build them cheap, there is no reason to build them for HLV. Plus if they were built cheap they probably would not need an HLV. Thats the whole point, the only reason j130 and the LEO only rockets are included is to act as an emergency backup for station ,regardless of lifting power or wasted upmass, in the event that nothing else is availble. Thats all the should be used for. The larger 2 stage configs are for BEO ops. Additionally, if you were on a tight budget you could probably put a D IV H upper stage on a j130 and leave leo for a moon flyaround or something.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: SpaceWarper on 03/08/2010 07:07 PM
Interesting relations between capabilities (mass and volume of payload) of HLV and cost and complexity for scientific missions:
http://askmagazine.nasa.gov/issues/37/37s_rocket_science_dialogue.php

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 03/08/2010 07:41 PM
Interesting relations between capabilities (mass and volume of payload) of HLV and cost and complexity for scientific missions:
http://askmagazine.nasa.gov/issues/37/37s_rocket_science_dialogue.php

Quote from: the article
“It’s easy to be agreeable and collegial because there’s no real money being spent,” mused Harley Thronson.

Which is more or less what Analyst is saying. When you spend one Billion, with a 'B' on the launch vehicle there isn't much left for your payload, at least on the unmanned side of the equation.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/08/2010 08:17 PM

The Hutchinson bill is bad legislation because it forces us to chose quickly. If we can build a competitive market for LEO launches, there's a good chance we can do the same for heavy lift. It's important that legislatively we don't do anything to preclude such a market from forming. If a SD-HLV is to be built, the technology should first be transferred to a private company that then has to compete with everyone else on costs and capabilities. To have government operating what has essentially become a commodity is a mistake.

I'm sorry, but you're taking the wrong thing out of the context of the Bill.

re-read p.24

Line 8: Heavy Lift Development
        1) Review...
        2) Content -the review shall -...

These are 'recommendations' NOT absolutes. They are also on the REVIEW side, not the development side.
They may indeed find that in the grand scheme of things we MUST do away with SD-HLV due to the 'as yet unstated' goals and plan.

But nobody can say with any certainty what IS required, only what MIGHT be required. But there is ONE guarantee. If we do not adopt a SD-HLV, we face the same scenario as the post-Apollo days: brain drain. And the time it takes for NASA to get its act together (and congress to fund something post-mordem) may indeed cripple the American space industry.

You want proof, look at Constellation and how that was turning out.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Serafeim on 03/08/2010 08:31 PM
Quote
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is a planned infrared space observatory, the partial successor to the aging Hubble Space Telescope. The JWST will not be a complete successor, because it will not be sensitive to all of the light wavelengths that Hubble can see.   

from wikipedia

the only way we can send a bigger succesor of Hubble  to space without bigger rockets  is i think the foldable mirrors or somehing like that.

but for now without Hlv we will not have a visible light telescope to space for the next 10 years at least...
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: MP99 on 03/08/2010 08:35 PM
Compare as Bolden's team has a SD-HLV against the other HLV that can happen relatively quickly: the Atlas V Heavy. With a max lift of 140mT, and the added benefit of the ACES flexible Centaur coming along with it, it would not only serve as the platform for a HLV but for orbital tugs, refueling stations and a lunar lander. That's a lot of bang for the buck, which SD-HLV/Direct can't match.

Reminder: DIRECT also has an ACES upper stage.

How does the development cost for a 140mT Atlas compare with J-24x/J-24xSH? Upper stage costs would be the same, I presume.

I presume that not requiring an upper stage helps the costs for LEO SD-HLV launches.

Martin

Edit: BTW, I favour J-120 for the initial SD-HLV config - to minimise costs during the early phase.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: jimgagnon on 03/08/2010 09:14 PM
Compare as Bolden's team has a SD-HLV against the other HLV that can happen relatively quickly: the Atlas V Heavy. With a max lift of 140mT, and the added benefit of the ACES flexible Centaur coming along with it, it would not only serve as the platform for a HLV but for orbital tugs, refueling stations and a lunar lander. That's a lot of bang for the buck, which SD-HLV/Direct can't match.
Reminder: DIRECT also has an ACES upper stage.

How does the development cost for a 140mT Atlas compare with J-24x/J-24xSH? Upper stage costs would be the same, I presume.

I presume that not requiring an upper stage helps the costs for LEO SD-HLV launches.

I would love to see a comprehensive comparison of costs of Atlas V Heavy vs. Direct. However, the important point I want to get across is that NASA shouldn't build or operate its own heavy lifter; if it does, then it's impossible for a free market in heavy lift to get established. Rather, the technology should be transferred to a private company that would have incentives to minimize costs that are never present in a Federal program.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: jimgagnon on 03/08/2010 09:18 PM
But nobody can say with any certainty what IS required, only what MIGHT be required. But there is ONE guarantee. If we do not adopt a SD-HLV, we face the same scenario as the post-Apollo days: brain drain. And the time it takes for NASA to get its act together (and congress to fund something post-mordem) may indeed cripple the American space industry.

There is a key difference between now and the post-Apollo days: Bolden's team is actively starting up a commercial space sector that was absent in the 1970's that should be able to absorb a lot of the aerospace talent freed up by NASA leaving the commodity business of launch to low earth orbit. This talent will now have multiple outlets for expression, as opposed to the one-size-fits-all approach at NASA.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/08/2010 09:44 PM
Compare as Bolden's team has a SD-HLV against the other HLV that can happen relatively quickly: the Atlas V Heavy. With a max lift of 140mT, and the added benefit of the ACES flexible Centaur coming along with it, it would not only serve as the platform for a HLV but for orbital tugs, refueling stations and a lunar lander. That's a lot of bang for the buck, which SD-HLV/Direct can't match.
Reminder: DIRECT also has an ACES upper stage.

How does the development cost for a 140mT Atlas compare with J-24x/J-24xSH? Upper stage costs would be the same, I presume.

I presume that not requiring an upper stage helps the costs for LEO SD-HLV launches.

I would love to see a comprehensive comparison of costs of Atlas V Heavy vs. Direct. However, the important point I want to get across is that NASA shouldn't build or operate its own heavy lifter; if it does, then it's impossible for a free market in heavy lift to get established. Rather, the technology should be transferred to a private company that would have incentives to minimize costs that are never present in a Federal program.

AFAIK, the Atlas V Phase 3B (the 8.4m-diameter 140t IMLEO version) would use the ACES-41 common upper stage and would need four twin-engine 5.4m-diameter kerolox strap-ons.  The SDLV-Inline like DIRECT Jupiter would have an "ACES-181" a much larger upper stage.  It would also only need two RSRM or 5-seg solid strap-ons, all for about 120t IMLEO.  I wouldn't be surprised if the cost/launched tonnage came out quite similar.

FWIW, I think that the Atlas-V Phase 2 (which maxes out at about 105t IMLEO) is a better EELV-derived heavy lifter.  In its base form, it is an LEO crew vehicle launcher with performance comparable to the Delta-IVH and Atlas-VH (ideal for Orion to ISS).  It can also fly in Heavy (3-core) or Super-Heavy (5-core) configurations as well as various SRM-boosted options, which are unlikely to be crew-rated but will probably be used in cargo launches.  It also has a 8.4m/28ft PLF in its maximum launch forms.  With propellent depots, A-VP2 is pretty much the maximum required, enough for single-launch lunar or NEO missions.  Heck, you could even use it to launch a segmented Mars vehicle.

A "free market" in heavy lift isn't going to happen as NASA is a sole customer right now.  The "market" wouldn't support more than one system unless something very launch-intensive and requiring sustained effort over years emerges.  IMHO, commercial launch capability will stall at 25t IMLEO until cryogenic fuel depots are available.  Even after that, there will mostly only the most limited BEO opportunities (unless a Moon Outpost goes ahead).  A truely commercial LV of IMLEO above 50t is unlikely.

SDLV only makes sense if you want to do stuff with it during the last half decade of the ISSP.  If you don't need that capacity before then, then you might as well develop new technologies and try to develop a better 'clean sheet' design.  For what could you need such lift capability? Well, there is still the upmass issue (I'm still not convinced that the ISS will last to 2020 without something to replace the shuttle's lift capability).  I will also admit that I would like to see early BEO missions running in parallel with the ISS (lunar flybys, lunar orbiters and maybe even the earliest lander tests).
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/08/2010 10:28 PM
Quote
A "free market" in heavy [any] lift isn't going to happen with NASA as a sole customer.

Getting a non-NASA destination up there is far more important than commercial crew to ISS, and if a non-NASA destination is deployed to LEO, NewSpace will have all the business it can handle, without gutting the rest of NASA.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/08/2010 10:44 PM
Quote
A "free market" in heavy [any] lift isn't going to happen with NASA as a sole customer.

Getting a non-NASA destination up there is far more important than commercial crew to ISS, and if a non-NASA destination is deployed to LEO, NewSpace will have all the business it can handle, without gutting the rest of NASA.
Of course, any crew spacecraft launch vehicle besides a NASA launch vehicle will already have other customers (with the possible exception of the Taurus II, but that's almost surely because I don't know about people wanting to use the Taurus II, not because there isn't anyone). The Falcon 9 _will_ be used to launch other customers. The Dragon capsule _will_ be used for other customers in the form of DragonLab (the Foton has shown there's at least a small market for this, already). Of course, the Atlas V and Delta IV already launch lots of other payloads besides NASA ones. This is already known, even if there's no other space station in orbit and no space tourism market (of course, it is already established by selling Soyuz seats that there IS at least a small orbital tourism market).

That's not to say you don't already know all this. I'm just saying this for the benefit of those who seem to think that there is no commercial space market overlap for commercial crew. I mean, even if there's no market for commercial crew besides NASA's astronauts, there's plenty of reuse and overlap and cost-sharing with unmanned commercial payloads (including at least the Dragon spacecraft).
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/09/2010 12:51 AM
Quote
A "free market" in heavy [any] lift isn't going to happen with NASA as a sole customer.

Getting a non-NASA destination up there is far more important than commercial crew to ISS, and if a non-NASA destination is deployed to LEO, NewSpace will have all the business it can handle, without gutting the rest of NASA.

What we are arriving at here is the concept that NASA can serve as an anchor tenant for new human spaceflight systems that would then provide the required transportation for private orbital platforms.

Someone has to break the "chicken and egg" syndrome that has locked out commercial space development until now, and Obama has chosen to be that someone.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mmeijeri on 03/09/2010 01:12 AM
Getting a non-NASA destination up there is far more important than commercial crew to ISS

And the lack of crew vehicles is what's holding it back. And that's precisely what Obama's plan addresses.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/09/2010 01:16 AM
Quote
A "free market" in heavy [any] lift isn't going to happen with NASA as a sole customer.

Getting a non-NASA destination up there is far more important than commercial crew to ISS, and if a non-NASA destination is deployed to LEO, NewSpace will have all the business it can handle, without gutting the rest of NASA.

What we are arriving at here is the concept that NASA can serve as an anchor tenant for new human spaceflight systems that would then provide the required transportation for private orbital platforms.

Someone has to break the "chicken and egg" syndrome that has locked out commercial space development until now, and Obama has chosen to be that someone.

Why can't this be part of a compromise bill that can win broad support in Congress? I know of very few people object to commercial crew programs to ISS and I am a huge fan of the MirCorp attempt - Dan Goldin flubbed that one big time.

Anyway, aren't you in the Orphans of Apollo video?

So, why can't commercial crew to ISS (as an anchor to stimulate non-NASA destinations) be one integral part of a package deal?

For example, I believe the DIRECT advocates here have been in favor of commercial crew to ISS for several years, already.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/09/2010 01:20 AM
Getting a non-NASA destination up there is far more important than commercial crew to ISS

And the lack of crew vehicles is what's holding it back. And that's precisely what Obama's plan addresses.

I disagree concerning what's holding us back from non-NASA destinations in LEO.

I assert it is ITAR and NASA jealousy of non-NASA destinations in LEO as evidenced by the stories about Mike Griffin shutting down a private plan to provide Bigelow a crew taxi.

I simply do not believe commercial crew to ISS will transition to non-NASA destinations, not unless Charlie Bolden explicitly states that is the intention of this new plan.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mmeijeri on 03/09/2010 01:22 AM
So, why can't commercial crew to ISS (as an anchor to stimulate non-NASA destinations) be one integral part of a package deal?

What you are proposing is a two tier system under which some players are more equal than others. NASA employees and traditional NASA contractors would get most of the money and wouldn't have to compete, commercial players would have to compete for whatever scraps are left. That's not what I call a compromise. Nor is it fair or an efficient use of taxpayers' money.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mmeijeri on 03/09/2010 01:23 AM
I simply do not believe commercial crew to ISS will transition to non-NASA destinations, not unless Charlie Bolden explicitly states that is the intention of this new plan.

Excuse me? What about Bigelow? Bigelow is working with SpaceX and Boeing and may have been working with LM on crew solutions.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/09/2010 01:25 AM
So, why can't commercial crew to ISS (as an anchor to stimulate non-NASA destinations) be one integral part of a package deal?

What you are proposing is a two tier system under which some players are more equal than others. NASA employees and traditional NASA contractors would get most of the money and wouldn't have to compete, commercial players would have to compete for whatever scraps are left. That's not what I call a compromise. Nor is it fair or an efficient use of taxpayers' money.

Huh?

Commercial crew / cargo would be an open competition run in an impartial manner.

A NASA run SD-HLV (Jupiter) would NOT service ISS unless commercial crew proved unavailable and would be pointed out beyond LEO.

As for practical politics, has ANY member of Congress except Dana Rohrbacher endorsed the February 1st plan "as is" ??

And I submit having Dana Rohrbacher as an "ally" in this case is more of a bug than a feature.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/09/2010 01:27 AM
I simply do not believe commercial crew to ISS will transition to non-NASA destinations, not unless Charlie Bolden explicitly states that is the intention of this new plan.

Excuse me? What about Bigelow? Bigelow is working with SpaceX and Boeing and may have been working with LM on crew solutions.

Yes, and if Mike Griffin had not shut it down we would have private taxis to LEO whether or not we get commercial crew to ISS. Commercial crew simply is NOT the linchpin, here.

Once again, until Charlie Bolden explicitly says non-NASA destinations are part of the plan -- soon -- I smell a trap.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mmeijeri on 03/09/2010 01:27 AM
A NASA run SD-HLV (Jupiter) would NOT service ISS unless commercial crew proved unavailable and would be pointed out beyond LEO.

Exactly and this would get most of the money and would be shielded from competition. A two tier system.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mmeijeri on 03/09/2010 01:29 AM
Once again, until Charlie Bolden explicitly says non-NASA destinations are part of the plan -- soon -- I smell a trap.

A trap? What kind of a trap? What do you think Bolden/Obama is trying to achieve?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/09/2010 01:30 AM
A NASA run SD-HLV (Jupiter) would NOT service ISS unless commercial crew proved unavailable and would be pointed out beyond LEO.

Exactly and this would get most of the money and would be shielded from competition. A two tier system.

So what?

If we get Bigelow hotels and R&D facilities up and running, private carrier launch rates will soon swamp NASA launch rates and NASA can then be simply ignored by NewSpace.

Get non-NASA destinations up there and NewSpace can go around rather than through NASA. And avoid a massive fight with Congress.

Douglas MacArthur called it island hopping. Nazi panzers went through the Ardennes rather than the Maginot Line.

Why fight Congress head on when you can get what you want without the fight? Unless it's ideologically driven?

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/09/2010 01:36 AM
Once again, until Charlie Bolden explicitly says non-NASA destinations are part of the plan -- soon -- I smell a trap.

A trap? What kind of a trap? What do you think Bolden/Obama is trying to achieve?

I see no evidence that they desire non-NASA destinations in LEO, sooner rather than later. Can you offer any?

As for Obama, I believe he desires that NASA not cause him any headaches. Otherwise he doesn't much care.

John Holdren? I don't know. He might desire to shut down human spaceflight altogether. I don't know.

Lori Garver? She believes in the plan you describe.

Charlie Bolden? A loyal Marine trying to serve his CinC as best he can.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/09/2010 01:45 AM
"Obama has chosen to be that someone..."  An interesting observation, but I'm not sure that it's true.  He didn't make a big deal out of space in the campaign.  Now, I'm guessing it's more important to him as his aides inform him of the deep level of debate going on.  At the same time, maybe this will become an issue which he might be able to work to his polititical advantage.  The NASA budget is so small compared to so many other budgets.  Perhaps the President's advisors will be able to cut here and there, such that NASA gets more money.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mmeijeri on 03/09/2010 01:47 AM
Why fight Congress head on when you can get what you want without the fight?

I don't think we can get that with an SDLV or another NASA launch vehicle getting in the way. If I did I wouldn't be so worried about this. And about head on fights: I think SDLV proponents are painting a mythological picture of Congress as a whole being strongly opposed to the Obama plan. Lawmakers in districts that are strongly affected by the plan or lawmakers with campaign contributors who will be strongly affected, yes. Congress as a whole, that remains to be seen.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: mmeijeri on 03/09/2010 01:50 AM
"Obama has chosen to be that someone..."  An interesting observation, but I'm not sure that it's true.

A very good point. It seems unlikely Obama shares Garver's passion. He is taking a surprising amount of interest and is willing to be surprisingly radical. But unless his interest goes a lot deeper than seems likely he cannot be counted upon to fight for the current path if another solution that satisfies his real goals emerges.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/09/2010 02:10 AM
"Obama has chosen to be that someone..."  An interesting observation, but I'm not sure that it's true.  He didn't make a big deal out of space in the campaign.  Now, I'm guessing it's more important to him as his aides inform him of the deep level of debate going on.  At the same time, maybe this will become an issue which he might be able to work to his polititical advantage.  The NASA budget is so small compared to so many other budgets.  Perhaps the President's advisors will be able to cut here and there, such that NASA gets more money.

That letter signed by the entire Florida delegation surely got his attention, or at least Rahm Emmanuel's attention.

Also the Florida 2010 Senate race is very important to Democrats:

Marco Rubio, IMHO the most likely GOP candidate is highly critical of the new plan;

Kendrick Meek, the leading Democratic candidate is highly critical of the new plan;

Governor Charlie Crist (who may switch and run Democratic or run Republican) is highly critical of the new plan.

Which do you think Obama will value more?

Defending each and every detail of his new plan or maybe winning the Florida US Senate seat in 2010?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/09/2010 02:10 AM

Why fight Congress head on when you can get what you want without the fight? Unless it's ideologically driven?

Actually I think it's kind of the reverse in this case.

I'm beginning to think he's trying to MAKE congress work together, to fight together (as one).

Or I'm 180 out and he wants congress to fight each other, rather than just Obama all the time...like health care.

Quite an interesting thought. Ah, politics.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: libs0n on 03/09/2010 03:04 AM
Congress is not a unified block.  The vast majority of Congress appears to hold no strong opinions over the course which NASA takes.  Why would they, a majority, and a democratic majority, choose to go against the President's wishes concerning NASA on the behalf of a small predominantly self interested republican minority?

What fight?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: neilh on 03/09/2010 03:21 AM
I simply do not believe commercial crew to ISS will transition to non-NASA destinations, not unless Charlie Bolden explicitly states that is the intention of this new plan.

Excuse me? What about Bigelow? Bigelow is working with SpaceX and Boeing and may have been working with LM on crew solutions.

Yes, and if Mike Griffin had not shut it down we would have private taxis to LEO whether or not we get commercial crew to ISS. Commercial crew simply is NOT the linchpin, here.

Once again, until Charlie Bolden explicitly says non-NASA destinations are part of the plan -- soon -- I smell a trap.

You've said this before, and I'll ask the same question I did before: Why should NASA make announcements about something that NASA won't be involved in?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/09/2010 03:32 AM
I simply do not believe commercial crew to ISS will transition to non-NASA destinations, not unless Charlie Bolden explicitly states that is the intention of this new plan.

Excuse me? What about Bigelow? Bigelow is working with SpaceX and Boeing and may have been working with LM on crew solutions.

Yes, and if Mike Griffin had not shut it down we would have private taxis to LEO whether or not we get commercial crew to ISS. Commercial crew simply is NOT the linchpin, here.

Once again, until Charlie Bolden explicitly says non-NASA destinations are part of the plan -- soon -- I smell a trap.

You've said this before, and I'll ask the same question I did before: Why should NASA make announcements about something that NASA won't be involved in?

Remember, precedent has been established with Dan Goldin & MirCorp and the rumored smack-down by Mike Griffin of a private crew taxi for Bigelow.

If NASA does not repudiate these past precedents then we cannot assume - as Danderman asserts - that non-NASA LEO destinations are part of the new plan. Danderman and others argue that we should support the new plan because this plan will lead to non-NASA destinations in LEO.

How can we accept Danderman's argument when there is no evidence the U.S. government intends to allow non-NASA destinations in LEO?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: neilh on 03/09/2010 03:54 AM
Remember, precedent has been established with Dan Goldin & MirCorp and the rumored smack-down by Mike Griffin of a private crew taxi for Bigelow.

If NASA does not repudiate these past precedents then we cannot assume - as Danderman asserts - that non-NASA LEO destinations are part of the new plan. Danderman and others argue that we should support the new plan because this plan will lead to non-NASA destinations in LEO.

How can we accept Danderman's argument when there is no evidence the U.S. government intends to allow non-NASA destinations in LEO?

You seem to be the only person arguing that NASA would somehow prevent Bigelow from launching their modules, so I'm not sure why Bolden would make an announcement just to please one internet commenter. Do you think Bolden will ask the AF to shoot down Bigelow's modules or something?

Independent Bigelow modules are part of NASA's plan the same way that, say, JAXA solar sails or Orbcomm's satellite constellation. If they independently work out that's fantastic and NASA may want to leverage them in the future, but NASA has no business dictating what they should or shouldn't be doing. I suppose one could argue that Bolden has authority to make such dictates under NASA's charter to "seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space," but I'm really not sure dictates to industry are the proper way to do that.

That said, it would be neat for NASA to do something like purchase experiment time on a Bigelow in-orbit centrifugal facility or some-such.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: spacedem on 03/09/2010 04:43 AM
As for Obama, I believe he desires that NASA not cause him any headaches. Otherwise he doesn't much care.


How do you square that with the April 15th summit?  Who was the last president that spent that much time and attention on NASA - especially in the midst of a national crisis?

I submit that if Obama really didn't care about NASA and US spaceflight, he simply would have submitted yet another status quo budget that would have kept the impossible goals and underfunded them, leaving the hard work of devising a realistic new direction for another administration - the way a certain previous president did.

There would have been no summit, no new direction, no Augustine Commission, and certainly no additional funding.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 03/09/2010 04:48 AM
As for Obama, I believe he desires that NASA not cause him any headaches. Otherwise he doesn't much care.


How do you square that with the April 15th summit?  Who was the last president that spent that much time and attention on NASA - especially in the midst of a national crisis?

I submit that if Obama really didn't care about NASA and US spaceflight, he simply would have submitted yet another status quo budget that would have kept the impossible goals and underfunded them, leaving the hard work of devising a realistic new direction for another administration - the way a certain previous president did.

There would have been no summit, no new direction, no Augustine Commission, and certainly no additional funding.

Obama's already on record as "not caring" so your point is moot.

He's already expressed his desires to stop NASA for a period of time in order to use the money for his education plans.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/09/2010 05:06 AM
Anyway, aren't you in the Orphans of Apollo video?

Never saw it, can't say I know for sure if I am in it.
 :o :o :o
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/09/2010 05:07 AM
Obama's already on record as "not caring" so your point is moot.

He's already expressed his desires to stop NASA for a period of time in order to use the money for his education plans.

Given that Obama has significantly increased the NASA budget, the comment about it pretty valueless.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/09/2010 05:09 AM
Congress is not a unified block.  The vast majority of Congress appears to hold no strong opinions over the course which NASA takes.  Why would they, a majority, and a democratic majority, choose to go against the President's wishes concerning NASA on the behalf of a small predominantly self interested republican minority?

Actually, some in Congress who ARE opinionated actually support Obama's plan, so the fight will be a lot weaker than many here expect. Of course, any blowback is bad, so its likely Obama will compromise somewhere. Just don't expect YOUR favorite Jupiter 2 Jumbo space rocket to be part of the mix.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: spacedem on 03/09/2010 05:40 AM

Obama's already on record as "not caring" so your point is moot.

He's already expressed his desires to stop NASA for a period of time in order to use the money for his education plans.

Past words make present actions moot?  What an interesting perspective.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: woods170 on 03/09/2010 07:04 AM
Somewhat ironic that I, who am often described as being cynical, <snip>

That's funny, I don't think you're cynical.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Analyst on 03/09/2010 07:42 AM
the only way we can send a bigger succesor of Hubble  to space without bigger rockets  is i think the foldable mirrors or somehing like that.

but for now without Hlv we will not have a visible light telescope to space for the next 10 years at least...

You are wrong: Not the lack of a HLV, but the lack of funding for a telescope (payload) is the reason for not having one.

Analyst
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/09/2010 09:43 AM
the only way we can send a bigger succesor of Hubble  to space without bigger rockets  is i think the foldable mirrors or somehing like that.

but for now without Hlv we will not have a visible light telescope to space for the next 10 years at least...

You are wrong: Not the lack of a HLV, but the lack of funding for a telescope (payload) is the reason for not having one.

FWIW, we aren't even at the 'how much would it cost?' stage on such a concept.  As they are currently unlaunchable because of technical limitations, no one has sat down and seriously looked at how much it would cost and what would be the most cost-effective way of doing it.  Why bother? It would make an interesting thought experiment, I'm sure but that's all right now.

[edit]
Just to clarify my point: Funding might become available if someone could come up with a reasonable and non bank-breaking idea of how to do it.  As there isn't even a serious proposal, so there isn't funding.  A major project like that would likely have its own unique budget line outside of the regular NASA & science budgets anyway.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: MP99 on 03/09/2010 11:32 AM
I simply do not believe commercial crew to ISS will transition to non-NASA destinations, not unless Charlie Bolden explicitly states that is the intention of this new plan.

Excuse me? What about Bigelow? Bigelow is working with SpaceX and Boeing and may have been working with LM on crew solutions.

Yes, and if Mike Griffin had not shut it down we would have private taxis to LEO whether or not we get commercial crew to ISS. Commercial crew simply is NOT the linchpin, here.

Once again, until Charlie Bolden explicitly says non-NASA destinations are part of the plan -- soon -- I smell a trap.

You've said this before, and I'll ask the same question I did before: Why should NASA make announcements about something that NASA won't be involved in?

Because sharing the infrastructure costs with fully-commercial space access (tourism), may be expected to reduce the governement's access costs - higher flight rates and removing the need for DOD to pay for upkeep of the EELV infrastructure.

If the WH plan doesn't expect robust non-govt crewed flights on the horizon, then any of their own money that the commercial crew guys invest will just be clawed back by higher flight costs once flights begin.

Martin
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: MP99 on 03/09/2010 11:33 AM
Compare as Bolden's team has a SD-HLV against the other HLV that can happen relatively quickly: the Atlas V Heavy. With a max lift of 140mT, and the added benefit of the ACES flexible Centaur coming along with it, it would not only serve as the platform for a HLV but for orbital tugs, refueling stations and a lunar lander. That's a lot of bang for the buck, which SD-HLV/Direct can't match.
Reminder: DIRECT also has an ACES upper stage.

How does the development cost for a 140mT Atlas compare with J-24x/J-24xSH? Upper stage costs would be the same, I presume.

I presume that not requiring an upper stage helps the costs for LEO SD-HLV launches.

I would love to see a comprehensive comparison of costs of Atlas V Heavy vs. Direct. However, the important point I want to get across is that NASA shouldn't build or operate its own heavy lifter; if it does, then it's impossible for a free market in heavy lift to get established. Rather, the technology should be transferred to a private company that would have incentives to minimize costs that are never present in a Federal program.

AFAIK, the Atlas V Phase 3B (the 8.4m-diameter 140t IMLEO version) would use the ACES-41 common upper stage and would need four twin-engine 5.4m-diameter kerolox strap-ons.

This doesn't seem right?

Even if ACES-41 doesn't burn during ascent (ie pure EDS rather than upper stage) it could launch a max of ~35mT thru TLI, and a bit more to GTO.

The alternative is that this is for purely LEO payloads (fuelling a LEO PD, etc).

Quote
The SDLV-Inline like DIRECT Jupiter would have an "ACES-181" a much larger upper stage.

It's sized this way for 2-launch "DIRECT phase 2" (EOR-LOR). Reduce it somewhat for LOR-LOR (but still needs the same number of engines).

I'm guessing a big Atlas would need at least the same size upper stage for exploration (or a separate development programme for a 70mT (LOR) or >>100mT (EOR) EDS).


Quote
A "free market" in heavy lift isn't going to happen as NASA is a sole customer right now.  The "market" wouldn't support more than one system unless something very launch-intensive and requiring sustained effort over years emerges.

Only SBSP comes to mind for such a market.


Quote
IMHO, commercial launch capability will stall at 25t IMLEO until cryogenic fuel depots are available.  Even after that, there will mostly only the most limited BEO opportunities (unless a Moon Outpost goes ahead).  A truely commercial LV of IMLEO above 50t is unlikely.

SDLV only makes sense if you want to do stuff with it during the last half decade of the ISSP.  If you don't need that capacity before then, then you might as well develop new technologies and try to develop a better 'clean sheet' design.  For what could you need such lift capability? Well, there is still the upmass issue (I'm still not convinced that the ISS will last to 2020 without something to replace the shuttle's lift capability).  I will also admit that I would like to see early BEO missions running in parallel with the ISS (lunar flybys, lunar orbiters and maybe even the earliest lander tests).

Agreed that the issue with SDLV is how you plan to utilise it in the short term. J-120 seems to ease that problem somewhat in the early years.

Also agree re precursor / test flights in parallel with ISS.

Martin
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/09/2010 01:51 PM
Congress is not a unified block.  The vast majority of Congress appears to hold no strong opinions over the course which NASA takes.  Why would they, a majority, and a democratic majority, choose to go against the President's wishes concerning NASA on the behalf of a small predominantly self interested republican minority?

Actually, some in Congress who ARE opinionated actually support Obama's plan, so the fight will be a lot weaker than many here expect. Of course, any blowback is bad, so its likely Obama will compromise somewhere. Just don't expect YOUR favorite Jupiter 2 Jumbo space rocket to be part of the mix.


And this seems to be your opinion.  Just once I'd like to see you have some actual data to back up the many statements that you through around here, usually in an attempt to go after others. 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Mark S on 03/09/2010 02:15 PM
the only way we can send a bigger succesor of Hubble  to space without bigger rockets  is i think the foldable mirrors or somehing like that.

but for now without Hlv we will not have a visible light telescope to space for the next 10 years at least...

You are wrong: Not the lack of a HLV, but the lack of funding for a telescope (payload) is the reason for not having one.

FWIW, we aren't even at the 'how much would it cost?' stage on such a concept.  As they are currently unlaunchable because of technical limitations, no one has sat down and seriously looked at how much it would cost and what would be the most cost-effective way of doing it.  Why bother? It would make an interesting thought experiment, I'm sure but that's all right now.

[edit]
Just to clarify my point: Funding might become available if someone could come up with a reasonable and non bank-breaking idea of how to do it.  As there isn't even a serious proposal, so there isn't funding.  A major project like that would likely have its own unique budget line outside of the regular NASA & science budgets anyway.

The Large Binocular Telescope in Arizona uses two 8.4m diameter single-casting primary mirrors in tandem.  Each primary mirror masses about 16mT, and the support structures and altazimuth mounting weighs a couple hundred tons more.

So you can extrapolate those figures and guess that a space-based telescope with an 8.4m primary mirror would probably be heavier than what any 25mT class launcher could handle.

Of course that is nothing compared to the plans for the OWL telescope currently being planned.  That is a 100m diameter segmented mirror design that would dwarf anything that could be launched into space in the foreseeable future.

So yes, people are planning on spending large sums of money designing and building large telescopes.  If the launch capability were there, and a national commitment to the project as for HST, I'm sure some enterprising researchers could put together some plans for a really nice replacement for HST.  It is not beyond the realm of possibility, as some here would like everyone to believe.

Mark S.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/09/2010 02:30 PM
Those thick mirrors would not be required in microgravity. On Earth, you need a really thick and heavy mirror to try to compensate for sagging. In microgravity, that's not a problem. There's already been rather thin mirrors produced greater than 2 meters in diameter. Even if you had the available launch capacity, you wouldn't want an orbital telescope to be so heavy, since a more massive mirror would require a beefier RCS, etc. So, an EELV could do fine launching a large aperture telescope at least to LEO, IF there was available volume.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/09/2010 02:42 PM
And this seems to be your opinion.  Just once I'd like to see you have some actual data to back up the many statements that you through around here, usually in an attempt to go after others. 

BTW, are there any reports on new cosponsors for the Hutchinson bill?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/09/2010 03:04 PM
And this seems to be your opinion.  Just once I'd like to see you have some actual data to back up the many statements that you through around here, usually in an attempt to go after others. 

BTW, are there any reports on new cosponsors for the Hutchinson bill?


Haven't checked.  Why would there be "reports" anyway?  As far as I know, they don't do press releases every time someone has a conversation.

Either way, I have real work to do.  So I don't have the luxury of just spouting off a bunch of meaningless rants about the evils of NASA, except when you or your interests are the potential beneficiary. 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/09/2010 03:34 PM
There's a lot of stuff in space that needs to be seen yet.  I feel pretty sure we'll be spending a lotta money telescopes, both space and terrestrial.  One of the things that interests me is that technology seems to have at least partly solved the light pollution problem that plagues earthly 'scopes.

Obviously, an HLV will make the construction of a space station/depo easier, since it could bring up more payload and fuel with each launch.

It's easy to see missions for an HLV.  It's the prioritization of the proposed HLV which is a problem for me.  We're not sufficiently or efficiently using the smaller vehicles we already have.

Also, OV:  David asked about co-sponsors, not conversations.  Stick to the facts.  If you don't know, then tell him to look it up himself.  Ok, I will:  David:  Look it up yourself, and keep us posted.  It would be nice to know who is co-sponsoring Hutchinson's bill.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/09/2010 03:50 PM
Also, OV:  David asked about co-sponsors, not conversations.  Stick to the facts.  If you don't know, then tell him to look it up himself.  Ok, I will:  David:  Look it up yourself, and keep us posted.  It would be nice to know who is co-sponsoring Hutchinson's bill.

Having worked on campaigns for bills that became law, my experience was that the people working on the campaigns updated co-sponsorship as it happened. In this case, there are still no co-sponsors for S3038, which is a very bad sign for prospects for enactment of this particular legislation.

This doesn't mean that there are no negotiations with the Administration concerning Shuttle extension and the like, just that this particular bill seems to be DOA. Probably we should close this thread soon, and have a new topic about negotiations, since if there are no discussions about the bill here, its a dead thread.

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/09/2010 03:54 PM
"...the campaigns updated co-sponsorship as it happened..."  That would make sense; they're very interested in building momentum.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: rdale on 03/09/2010 05:01 PM
Some good info about this recent shuttle extension study at the end of today's 131 overview conference. John says he gets results on Thursday.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/09/2010 05:08 PM
Some good info about this recent shuttle extension study at the end of today's 131 overview conference. John says he gets results on Thursday.
Also at the beginning of Q&A.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: libs0n on 03/09/2010 06:32 PM
the only way we can send a bigger succesor of Hubble  to space without bigger rockets  is i think the foldable mirrors or somehing like that.

but for now without Hlv we will not have a visible light telescope to space for the next 10 years at least...

You are wrong: Not the lack of a HLV, but the lack of funding for a telescope (payload) is the reason for not having one.

FWIW, we aren't even at the 'how much would it cost?' stage on such a concept.  As they are currently unlaunchable because of technical limitations

Newsflash:  Hubble's mirror is 2.4 meters.  You heavy lift aperture snobs act as if we are buttressing up against the limits of current and possible EELV fairing diameters for a monolithic mirror, when we aren't even close to maxing out the available standard.

A modern bigger successor to Hubble has been possible for quite some time; is possible today.  If it does not exist for lack of a program, it is not because current fairing diameters don't offer the possibility of improved aperture size.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/09/2010 06:45 PM

Why fight Congress head on when you can get what you want without the fight? Unless it's ideologically driven?

Actually I think it's kind of the reverse in this case.

I'm beginning to think he's trying to MAKE congress work together, to fight together (as one).

Or I'm 180 out and he wants congress to fight each other, rather than just Obama all the time...like health care.

Quite an interesting thought. Ah, politics.
I have heard this many many times. And it has not really been debated yet BUT: IMHO I do not think that is the case, merely a "happy byproduct" if you will, of his decision.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: notsorandom on 03/09/2010 07:58 PM
Newsflash:  Hubble's mirror is 2.4 meters.  You heavy lift aperture snobs act as if we are buttressing up against the limits of current and possible EELV fairing diameters for a monolithic mirror, when we aren't even close to maxing out the available standard.

A modern bigger successor to Hubble has been possible for quite some time; is possible today.  If it does not exist for lack of a program, it is not because current fairing diameters don't offer the possibility of improved aperture size.

The Hubble Space Telescope took up the entire width and almost the entire length of the payload bay when it was launched on STS-31. Here is a link to a picture of it before launch that shows how it filled up the bay. http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/9009375.jpg (http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/9009375.jpg) That bay is 4.6 meters wide by 18m. The Delta IV offers a 5 meter fairing 19.8 meters long so yes the EElVs can haul up a larger diameter but it only improve upon the Shuttle by 40cm wide by 1.8 meters long. Thats not a huge improvement on volume. The mirror is always going to be smaller then the fairing diameter by a bit to make room for the spacecrafts structural elements and other design
considerations.

Launching a telescope on an HLV is a legitimate use of that class of rocket once the rocket is developed. However, it is not the sole or only justification for making an HLV. I think the argument people are making about launching a telescope on an HLV is that there are other very useful things that can be be done with an HLV in addition to going to the moon.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: libs0n on 03/09/2010 09:07 PM
The Hubble Space Telescope took up the entire width and almost the entire length of the payload bay when it was launched on STS-31. Here is a link to a picture of it before launch that shows how it filled up the bay. http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/9009375.jpg (http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/9009375.jpg) That bay is 4.6 meters wide by 18m. The Delta IV offers a 5 meter fairing 19.8 meters long so yes the EElVs can haul up a larger diameter but it only improve upon the Shuttle by 40cm wide by 1.8 meters long. Thats not a huge improvement on volume. The mirror is always going to be smaller then the fairing diameter by a bit to make room for the spacecrafts structural elements and other design
considerations.


You're making the assumption that Hubble maxed out the mirror space possible in a fixed fairing diameter, and that a non-Hubble duplicate design such as that commonly envisioned for the HLV telescopes could not make improvements in the mirror size within a similar diameter.  My argument would be that the existing boosters still can offer the possibility of improvements in this single aspect.  The design space is explorable.

Also, there are larger diameter and conceptual asymmetrical fairing types proposed for the EELVs that offer improvements in the maximum fairing diameter possible.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/09/2010 09:22 PM
That bay is 4.6 meters wide by 18m. The Delta IV offers a 5 meter fairing 19.8 meters long

You are comparing internal diameter with external diameter.

It might surprise you to learn that the external width of the Shuttle main fuselage is...   ...drum-roll please...   ...5.0m.

And it might equally surprise you to learn that once you account for the thickness of the Delta's PLF structure and acoustic matting, the internal usable diameter is...   ...can you guess?   ...4.6m.

It is NOT a coincidence that 5.0m PLF's are used.   They needed for Titan-IV specifically so that USAF could launch all of the Shuttle payloads after Challenger was lost.

And Delta-IV was then designed to fly with the existing Titan-IV PLF's so that integration of existing payloads could be simplified.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: jongoff on 03/10/2010 01:00 AM
That bay is 4.6 meters wide by 18m. The Delta IV offers a 5 meter fairing 19.8 meters long

You are comparing internal diameter with external diameter.

It might surprise you to learn that the external width of the Shuttle main fuselage is...   ...drum-roll please...   ...5.0m.

And it might equally surprise you to learn that once you account for the thickness of the Delta's PLF structure and acoustic matting, the internal usable diameter is...   ...can you guess?   ...4.6m.

It is NOT a coincidence that 5.0m PLF's are used.   They needed for Titan-IV specifically so that USAF could launch all of the Shuttle payloads after Challenger was lost.

And Delta-IV was then designed to fly with the existing Titan-IV PLF's so that integration of existing payloads could be simplified.

One thing to remember is that the EELVs are both capable of bigger fairings if the need arises.  They've mentioned diameters up to 7.5m being feasible without huge changes.  And while this doesn't necessarily apply for a space telescope mirror, other payloads can be built integral with the walls of the PLF.  That's how ULA has been proposing to do 75-115mT LOX/LH2 propellant depots that can be launched dry on a single Atlas V with an OML matching an existing fairing shape.  They've also proposed the same thing for large space modules.  You could launch a module that's 2/3 the volume of a BA-330 inflatable if it was built into the PLF wall...

Just food for thought.

~Jon
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/10/2010 01:17 AM
Also, OV:  David asked about co-sponsors, not conversations.  Stick to the facts.  If you don't know, then tell him to look it up himself.  Ok, I will:  David:  Look it up yourself, and keep us posted.  It would be nice to know who is co-sponsoring Hutchinson's bill.

Having worked on campaigns for bills that became law, my experience was that the people working on the campaigns updated co-sponsorship as it happened. In this case, there are still no co-sponsors for S3038, which is a very bad sign for prospects for enactment of this particular legislation.

This doesn't mean that there are no negotiations with the Administration concerning Shuttle extension and the like, just that this particular bill seems to be DOA. Probably we should close this thread soon, and have a new topic about negotiations, since if there are no discussions about the bill here, its a dead thread.



(It's Hutchison, not Hutchinson, by the way).I responded to this issue of cosponsors in an earlier post, which you may have missed, but since you keep raising it, let me elaborate a bit.

First, a simple statement of observed experience, based on my thirty-plus years of working in the Congress: the number of cosponsors of a bill is NOT a determining factor in passage of a bill. I have seen many bills with an actual majority of members cosponsoring them, which have never even been reported our of committee. I have seen even more bills with either no or very few cosponsors get enacted into law.

Maybe one pertinent example might help illustrate how that can be. Look up in the Library of Congress Thomas web-site the bill S. 3270, the "NASA Authorization Act of 2008." It was introduced by Senator Daniel Inouye, with no cosponsors. It will show, if you check the legislative history, that the bill was reported by the Commerce Committee, placed on the Senate Calendar, and no further action was taken on that bill. Did it "die" because of a lack of cosponsors? No...the majority of the content of S. 3270 is now Public Law 110-422.

How? Because the House had passed its version of a NASA Authorization Act (HR 6063) (either House can originate such a bill) before the Senate Bill was reported, so that bill had been referred to the Senate for action. The "action" taken by the Senate, starting around July 12th, was to undertake a process called "pre-conferencing".

Normally, if each chamber passes its own version of a given bill, then a "conference" is conducted, in which representatives of the committees of jurisdiction in each chamber are named "conferees" and essentially authorized to represent their respective chambers in seeking to negotiate a compromise that modifies the underlying legislation (either the House version or the Senate version) in such a way that both are satisfied with the result. They then file a "conference report" with their respective chambers outlining the changes agreed to in conference, and recommend adoption of the conference report. If both chambers vote to adopt the conference report, the underlying bill, as modified by the conferees, is adopted, and sent to the President.

Under a "preconference" process, those negotiations take place BEFORE one the of the two chambers actually passes a bill. That's what happened in the case of the 2008 NASA Authorization bill. The House Science Committee, which had produced and reported the bill HR 6063, took the language of S. 3270 that it was "comfortable" with (or knew the Senate would insist upon), and the language of HR 6063, which the House had passed, and combined them into a proposed REVISED version of HR 6063 (since they had passed a bill, it was the House bill number that was used to designate the compromise language).

The proposed revision was presented to the Senate--all this at the staff level, initially--and there ensured a series of meetings and discussions which led to a compromise bill, which included most parts of both the House-passed bill and the Senate-reported bill, rewritten, where necessary, with language both could agree upon, which was then presented to the Members (in this case, primarily the Committee leadership of the House Science Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee, whether cosponsors or not) and agreed to, in principal. Then the House waited while the Senate went through the process of clearing and adopting (by unanimous consent) the modified House-passed bill. Since the modifications to the original House bill had been "preconferenced", the House then was able to simply accept the Senate-passed version, and send the bill to the President for signature, which he signed on October 15th, 2008, as I recall.

None of this process was "extraordinary" and NONE of it depended on the number of cosponsors either bill had upon introduction.

The Hutchison Bill, by its very structure, is written so as to be the "core" of a broader NASA Authorization Bill, and it is fully planned and expected, going in, that it will likely be "absorbed" into that larger NASA Authorization Bill, which will likely be reported by the Commerce Committee, once it is satisfied with it, and it goes through the process known as "mark-up" (amendment and endorsement by the Committee) as a new and separate bill.

But that new and separate could (and Senator Hutchison of course would hope and will work to that end) include virtually every word of the bill now known as S. 3068. So, yes...S. 3068 could very possibly never be adopted as such. But, as the example I just described should make clear, that is meaningless. It's not the Bill NUMBER; it's the bill CONTENT. If that content, and the policy it endeavors to establish ends up as the law of the land, no one is going to CARE what the original bill number was, or how many cosponsors it did or did not have (well, a historian of the arcane might care, I suppose, and those who want to biographical research on who associated themselves visibly with what piece of legislation at what point in time, etc.).

The process I've described is also just ONE of a number of ways legislative language finds its way into the law books. And I know of NONE in which the number of cosponsors is relevant other than in making a "splash" on introduction, or, in some cases, trying to use the strength of numbers as a lever in trying to get a bill discharged from a recalcitrant committee or to get the attention of leadership for floor consideration. But those are absolutely not ESSENTIAL to get passage of a bill. So, please, try to learn more about the broad range of possibilities within a very complex and varied process before picking on one (in this case) potentially irrelevant piece of it and make it out to be something more than it is.

Thus, the discussion in this thread, to the extent it continues to address the CONTENT of the language in S. 3068 is timely, pertinent, relevant, and I'm sure seen as helpful dialogue by those interested in seeing the CONTENT of the bill succeed eventually into law, within whatever legislative "vehicle" might be available.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: neilh on 03/10/2010 08:18 AM
51D Mascot, thanks for the excellent post regarding the legislative process!
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: SpaceWarper on 03/10/2010 10:39 AM
Newsflash:  Hubble's mirror is 2.4 meters.  ...

Interesting base for a news.  You take a 20 years old telescope to define future requirements of sophisticated telescopes.  Is this perhaps a rhetoric trick and you mean in reality the opposite?  Did you understand that you could save ca. $2 bil. for JWST if you have a large HLV which can house an unfolded simple JWST?   Do you understand that the next maximizing telescope will probalby again take $2.bil due to maximize the size of a very complex folded telescope? If you assume 5 JWST-sized telescopes in the next 25 years then you would invest $10 bil. into optimizing single-mission-devices.  I think this money is better invested into the development of a sophisticated HLV that can lift a lot of different loads than to optimize scientific satellites to make best use of the limited volume.  I can't explain that simpler without hand puppets.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/10/2010 01:11 PM
First, a simple statement of observed experience, based on my thirty-plus years of working in the Congress: the number of cosponsors of a bill is NOT a determining factor in passage of a bill. I have seen many bills with an actual majority of members cosponsoring them, which have never even been reported our of committee. I have seen even more bills with either no or very few cosponsors get enacted into law.

Everything in the post above is true and also irrelevant to my point, because co-sponsorship of appropriation and authorization bills, the ones introduced by leadership, is irrelevant.  As most people already understand,  bills that fund the government do not require co-sponsorship.

On the other hand, bills that are not introduced at the behest of the administration or congressional leadership DO require demonstrations of support, otherwise the bills, and their content, are the equivalent of one hand clapping.  The standard demonstration of support for such bills is co-sponsorship.

So, yes, there are budget, appropriation and authorization bills introduced and passed every year without co-sponsorship, but these are not relevant to this discussion. And there are also situations where bills are thrown into the hopper at the last moment and subsequently integrated as amendments into other legislation, and in that form they are enacted into law, usually at the behest of leadership. The Hutchison bill does not seem to qualify as one of those situations.

The last argument is that the Hutchison bill won't be enacted into law as such, but key components will find their way into the NASA authorization. I agree, to the extent that those components are supported by Congress. How will the Administration and leadership determine whether these components are widely supported? The traditional approach would be via co-sponsorship of the Hutchison bill.  We are told now that such co-sponsorship isn't relevant, so I guess we are to depend on public statements of support by elected officials for the various goodies in the Hutchinson bill, speeches in support of lunar landings and the like.

We'll see. However, the somewhat irrelevant post by 51D Mascot reminds me of what politicians say before elections when they are trailing in the polls: "The only poll that matters is the election".
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/10/2010 01:33 PM
First, a simple statement of observed experience, based on my thirty-plus years of working in the Congress: the number of cosponsors of a bill is NOT a determining factor in passage of a bill. I have seen many bills with an actual majority of members cosponsoring them, which have never even been reported our of committee. I have seen even more bills with either no or very few cosponsors get enacted into law.

Everything in the post above is true and also irrelevant to my point, because co-sponsorship of appropriation and authorization bills, the ones introduced by leadership, is irrelevant.  As most people already understand,  bills that fund the government do not require co-sponsorship.

On the other hand, bills that are not introduced at the behest of the administration or congressional leadership DO require demonstrations of support, otherwise the bills, and their content, are the equivalent of one hand clapping.  The standard demonstration of support for such bills is co-sponsorship.

So, yes, there are budget, appropriation and authorization bills introduced and passed every year without co-sponsorship, but these are not relevant to this discussion. And there are also situations where bills are thrown into the hopper at the last moment and subsequently integrated as amendments into other legislation, and in that form they are enacted into law, usually at the behest of leadership. The Hutchison bill does not seem to qualify as one of those situations.

The last argument is that the Hutchison bill won't be enacted into law as such, but key components will find their way into the NASA authorization. I agree, to the extent that those components are supported by Congress. How will the Administration and leadership determine whether these components are widely supported? The traditional approach would be via co-sponsorship of the Hutchison bill.  We are told now that such co-sponsorship isn't relevant, so I guess we are to depend on public statements of support by elected officials for the various goodies in the Hutchinson bill, speeches in support of lunar landings and the like.

We'll see. However, the somewhat irrelevant post by 51D Mascot reminds me of what politicians say before elections when they are trailing in the polls: "The only poll that matters is the election".


Hmmm.."irrelevant?" Did you read the opening line of the Hutchison bill, right after the word "A Bill"?  It says "To reauthorize the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Human Space Flight Activities and for other purposes." Section 9 of the bill is entitled "Authorization of Appropriations" and is exactly the format you would find in authorization bills. And as I said in my "irrelevant" post, the bill was structured so as to be the core of a 2010 NASA Authorization Act. Oh, and, by the way, Senator Hutchison is the Ranking Member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. the AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE that has jurisdiction for NASA. That makes her, as you say "Committee Leadership." (She would be Chair of the Committee if the Republicans were the Majority in the Senate).

I really would like to know the basis for your assertions about "standard demonstrations of support" and "bills not introduced at the behest of the administration or leadership." They are simply not accurate. Fortunately, the prospects of the Hutchison bill do not depend on you understanding the legislative process, and certainly not on you accepting my description of it, which is based on the fact that I've been involved directly in that process for a very long time.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: phantomdj on 03/10/2010 02:48 PM
John Shannon, the space shuttle program manager, said recently that if there was a significant shuttle extension there would be a gap of two years in shuttle flights because of the need to ramp up tank production again.

I thought we had two partially built tanks that could be completed well within this two year period he is talking about so ramp up could be done before these two tanks fly and there would be very little if no gap at all.  If you stretch the five flights (4 + EON) and then two flights with the partial tanks there shouldn’t be any gap or am I missing something?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/10/2010 03:00 PM
phantom,
I believe he actually said that there would be a two year gap in tank production, not the flights themselves.

He knows better than anyone, that the manifest can be moved around to cover that gap, should it be necessary.


But nobody is actually proposing to build any more new ET's.   The only thing we need, is to finish and fly all FIVE of the ones for which all the parts are currently in-stock and which are in various stages of completion right now, but which are not currently manifested to fly:

Current Manifest:

ET-135 = STS-131
ET-136 = STS-132
ET-137 = STS-134
ET-138 = STS-133
ET-122 = LON-335 (could be re-tasked to STS-135)

Additional In-Stock Tank Assemblies Which Can Be Readied To Fly:

ET-139 (in-stock, partially assembled)
ET-140 (in-stock, partially assembled)
ET-141 (in-stock, partially assembled)
ET-95 (in-stock, almost complete)

And if you look on L2 there is talk of another fully-built LWT tank which can also be made ready to fly, but I'll leave that to L2 members to learn all those details as they are still very fresh.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/10/2010 03:02 PM
But nobody is actually proposing to build any more new ET's.   

Well, that is NOT quite accurate.

Edit:  Ooops.  Left out a very important word....
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Bill White on 03/10/2010 03:08 PM
But nobody is actually proposing to build any more new ET's.   The only thing we need, is to finish and fly ALL of the ones which are in various stages of completion right now.

Ross.

Not building any additional shuttle sidemount ETs but starting an immediate transition to building Jupiter inline ETs would seem consistent with Senator Bill Nelson's call to fly out the current shuttle ET stockpile combined with the immediate development of an HLV to be chosen by NASA, but which uses solid boosters.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2010_record&page=S1254&position=all

Nelson's speech begins halfway down the middle column

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/10/2010 03:25 PM
But nobody is actually proposing to build any more new ET's.   

Well, that is NOT quite accurate.

Edit:  Ooops.  Left out a very important word....

Hmmmm...that has the 'hint' of a jobs/SD-HLV motive there...
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Drapper23 on 03/10/2010 03:31 PM


Rocket Engineering Via Zogby Poll  http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=786:2002-futron-study-one-basis-of-optimism-about-commercial-human-space-flight-says-ostp-staffer&catid=67:news&Itemid=27   
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/03/spacex-test-of-falcon-9s-engines-is-aborted.html  http://www.clickorlando.com/news/22788940/detail.html  We now know one of the main reasons NASA picked commercial space rockets over Direct 3--a Zogby Poll. Ladies & Gentlemen we know have Rocket Engineering decisions being made on the basis of Zogby Polls(See 1st link!). And have you heard about the 1st test firing on the pad yesterday of the Falcon 9 rocket--it fizzled out on the pad(See 2nd & Third Links!). Welcome to the new Zogby Poll Space Program!!!! 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/10/2010 03:33 PM
That's funny.!!

(first one on the poll)

Personally Drapper, I don't think the inclusion of the SpaceX links are entirely relavent. That is standard stuff: it happens.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 03:38 PM
Since commercial space is all about surviving on it's revenue rather than tax dollars I don't see what's the big deal with zogby, considering they deal with finances (unless I missed something) Unless the people at  zogby will be the ones building new launch vehicles I fail so see your concern/outrage. They made an analysis on the potential market for private space, they didn't advise NASA to move away from Direct, because they deal with marketing not rocket designs.

It didn't fissile, it was aborted successfully. Be glad it didn't blow up. And anyway there already is a thread for the F9 test - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20799.0;topicseen
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/10/2010 03:56 PM
Since commercial space is all about surviving on it's revenue rather than tax dollars I don't see what's the big deal with zogby, considering they deal with finances (unless I missed something) Unless the people at  zogby will be the ones building new launch vehicles I fail so see your concern/outrage. They made an analysis on the potential market for private space, they didn't advise NASA to move away from Direct, because they deal with marketing not rocket designs.


However, that is the misconception of all of this.  It will not survive without tax dollars because the market is not there to support it. 

While there will be off-shoots, such as Virgin with suborbital tourism and maybe a destination from Bigelow, that alone will not support all the other vehicles being proposed to be developed. 

So, what this is for the near- and medium-terms is government funded via firm-fixed-price contracts, although it is unclear how much captial funding these firms will provide because those details have not been worked out yet and should be another clue this is not right around the corner, for development and then firm-fixed-price contracts for services. 

However, unless the government subsidizes directly or the service price is intentionally inflated to cover the sustaining operations (which include all the things people tend to forget about when the vehicles are not flying) the "market" in it's present form cannot keep all these players active. 

While it is a bit of a "chicken and egg" scenerio it is definitely NOT about surviving on revenue totally independent from the government at this point. 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: marsavian on 03/10/2010 03:58 PM
Official Congressional record of introduction in the Senate on March 3rd

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S1024&dbname=2010_record
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S1025&dbname=2010_record
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S1026&dbname=2010_record
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S1027&dbname=2010_record
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S1028&dbname=2010_record
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S1029&dbname=2010_record
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S1030&dbname=2010_record
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 04:06 PM

However, that is the misconception of all of this.  It will not survive without tax dollars because the market is not there to support it.

Of course, it's a young market and establishing it will be hard, because private companies can't absorb as many financial hits induced by failure (either in R&D or in operations) as the government. That's why they're getting money to help lessen the risks involved. I am aware of this OV.

While there will be off-shoots, such as Virgin with suborbital tourism and maybe a destination from Bigelow, that alone will not support all the other vehicles being proposed to be developed. 

My understanding is that even though it won't support them directly with financing, it will help to show that there is a market for space tourism if Virgin and Bigelow are even nominally successful. Whether the other vehicles succeed or fail is up to their developers ultimately.

So, what this is for the near- and medium-terms is government funded via firm-fixed-price contracts, although it is unclear how much captial funding these firms will provide because those details have not been worked out yet and should be another clue this is not right around the corner, for development and then firm-fixed-price contracts for services. 

However, unless the government subsidizes directly or the service price is intentionally inflated to cover the sustaining operations (which include all the things people tend to forget about when the vehicles are not flying) the "market" in it's present form cannot keep all these players active. 

So if I understand correctly your concern is that it's uncertain if they can establish a market and reach a point where they don't need subsidies? One thing is certain if they don't try we'll never know.

While it is a bit of a "chicken and egg" scenerio it is definitely NOT about surviving on revenue totally independent from the government at this point. 

Yes, at this point.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/10/2010 04:09 PM
The money earmarked for this is only 6 billion over 5 years.  I promise it will not be enough.  You have evidence of that already in the COTS Program world. 

All of this above just goes back to the phrase "hope is not a plan"
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 04:15 PM
Perhaps the 6 billion won't be enough, but I can't say for sure. I prefer to think of it as an experiment, not just sheer hope. It might produce a very interesting result or it might blow up in your face. You can't really tell, you just decide whether the potential gain is worth the risk. I take it you think it isn't, but I'm interested in what might come out of it.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 04:24 PM
...and the plot thickens...

http://www.space.com/news/space-shuttle-extension-needs-money-100309.html

Quote
WASHINGTON – The chief of NASA's space shuttle program said Tuesday that the agency could technically continue to fly its three aging orbiters beyond their planned 2010 retirement if ordered to do so by President Barack Obama and lawmakers. All it would take would be the extra funding needed to pay for it.

The money is there.  It is a question of "want to".

FINALLY the media reports John Shannon's comments. I wonder how Bolden will respond.... "eh em um...well you see ....um we could technically build things that could um....enable us to do that but its too expensive, too long, too dangerous, shuttle isn't safe, he did not consult me first, bla bla bla :can't, wouldn't, shouldn't, mustn't...."
The future is looking a little brighter for HSF. I think if, as was said here earlier, KBH bill is absorbed into a larger proposal as long two key things: shuttle extension to at least 2012 (because to 2015 I think will be removed as part of the comprimise), and the sdhlv and hard goals for beo in the next 20 years are there, things are ok.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/10/2010 04:24 PM
Perhaps the 6 billion won't be enough, but I can't say for sure. I prefer to think of it as an experiment, not just sheer hope. It might produce a very interesting result or it might blow up in your face. You can't really tell, you just decide whether the potential gain is worth the risk. I take it you think it isn't, but I'm interested in what might come out of it.

I can say for sure it is not enough.

As for the "experiment", it is not wise to gamble with an entire industry where there is currently no plan, no timetable and insufficient funding to make a difference.  I promise you the result of this "experiment" is as follows:

1.  Near total destruction of this industry.  Unique and valuable skills and experience lost.
2.  Much more than projected costs for "commercial" development and with that schedules that move to the right.
3.  An ISS that has degraded and not lived up to it's intended purpose.
4.  A business case that has degraded for the "commercial" providers because of the degraded ISS.
5.  Political posturing calling NASA a failure and the "commercial experiment" a loss. 
6.  The United States of America has no more capability and lost its leadership in spaceflight.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 04:25 PM
Perhaps the 6 billion won't be enough, but I can't say for sure. I prefer to think of it as an experiment, not just sheer hope. It might produce a very interesting result or it might blow up in your face. You can't really tell, you just decide whether the potential gain is worth the risk. I take it you think it isn't, but I'm interested in what might come out of it.

I can say for sure it is not enough.

As for the "experiment", it is not wise to gamble with an entire industry where there is currently no plan, no timetable and insufficient funding to make a difference.  I promise you the result of this "experiment" is as follows:

1.  Near total destruction of this industry.  Unique and valuable skills and experience lost.
2.  Much more than projected costs for "commercial" development and with that schedules that move to the right.
3.  An ISS that has degraded and not lived up to it's intended purpose.
4.  A business case that has degraded for the "commercial" providers because of the degraded ISS.
5.  Political posturing calling NASA a failure and the "commercial experiment" a loss. 
6.  The United States of America has no more capability and lost its leadership in spaceflight.
Yeup. Thats about the whole of it.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 04:28 PM
phantom,
I believe he actually said that there would be a two year gap in tank production, not the flights themselves.

He knows better than anyone, that the manifest can be moved around to cover that gap, should it be necessary.


But nobody is actually proposing to build any more new ET's.   The only thing we need, is to finish and fly all FIVE of the ones for which all the parts are currently in-stock and which are in various stages of completion right now, but which are not currently manifested to fly:

Current Manifest:

ET-135 = STS-131
ET-136 = STS-132
ET-137 = STS-134
ET-138 = STS-133
ET-122 = LON-335 (could be re-tasked to STS-135)

Additional In-Stock Tank Assemblies Which Can Be Readied To Fly:

ET-139 (in-stock, partially assembled)
ET-140 (in-stock, partially assembled)
ET-141 (in-stock, partially assembled)
ET-95 (in-stock, almost complete)

And if you look on L2 there is talk of another fully-built LWT tank which can also be made ready to fly, but I'll leave that to L2 members to learn all those details as they are still very fresh.

Ross.
Thats: 9 flights of shuttle or, 8 flights plus one jupiter 130 test flight, or 7 flights plus 1 test flight and, if it is succesful, and operational jupiter flight. Thats why I like KBH :D
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 04:30 PM
1.  Near total destruction of this industry.  Unique and valuable skills and experience lost.
2.  Much more than projected costs for "commercial" development and with that schedules that move to the right.
3.  An ISS that has degraded and not lived up to it's intended purpose.
4.  A business case that has degraded for the "commercial" providers because of the degraded ISS.
5.  Political posturing calling NASA a failure and the "commercial experiment" a loss. 
6.  The United States of America has no more capability and lost its leadership in spaceflight.

All of that is one possible outcome. And it assumes the current budget plan will pass unchanged and I think we can agree that's not likely. I saw finalfrontier say something about a shuttle extension to 2012 and I think that would be a good idea to ease the transition.

And I thought I was a pessimist about the future OV :)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/10/2010 04:34 PM

And I thought I was a pessimist about the future OV :)

I want commercial spaceflight.  Anyone in this industry should.  I do not subscribe to either of the "extremes" with regard to this issue.

However, the current "lack of plan" and the above is not pessisism, it is realism based on knowledge and experience. 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 04:40 PM
Well idk about your estimates about the financial overruns, but given that such programs always run into problems like that it's probably inevitable. Still the overruns might not be so severe.

And the lack of a plan is a concern I have as well. Presently this new direction is a budget and no concrete strategy built around it, which means people tend to read into it what they want - it's the dawn of a new age of space exploration or it's the end of US HSF as we know it. Hopefully they will hammer out the details by the 15th of april so we know what's to come of all this.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 04:41 PM

And I thought I was a pessimist about the future OV :)

I want commercial spaceflight.  Anyone in this industry should.  I do not subscribe to either of the "extremes" with regard to this issue.

However, the current "lack of plan" and the above is not pessisism, it is realism based on knowledge and experience. 
Very well said.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 04:43 PM
Well idk about your estimates about the financial overruns, but given that such programs always run into problems like that it's probably inevitable. Still the overruns might not be so severe.

And the lack of plan is a concern I have as well. Presently this new direction is a budget and no concrete strategy built around it, which means people tend to read into it what they want - it's the dawn of a new age of space exploration or it's the end of US HSF as we know it. Hopefully they will hammer out the details by the 15th of april so we know what's to come of all this.
As Ross said, if the folks in congress don't rally around one point or idea (like the KBH bill) then obama will simply say: what you got a better idea? that you can all agree on? no? didn't think so. But I have faith.....albeit little faith at this point.......
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/10/2010 04:43 PM
Well idk about your estimates about the financial overruns, but given that such programs always run into problems like that it's probably inevitable. Still the overruns might not be so severe.


"Hope is not a plan"
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/10/2010 04:47 PM
Well idk about your estimates about the financial overruns, but given that such programs always run into problems like that it's probably inevitable. Still the overruns might not be so severe.

According to the Obama Budget, the CRS contract needs a 62% increase, only two years in.

That is the only solid data point regarding cost overruns for the New.Space community so far.

As indicators go, it is not a favourable one.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 04:48 PM
Well idk about your estimates about the financial overruns, but given that such programs always run into problems like that it's probably inevitable. Still the overruns might not be so severe.

According to the Obama Budget, the CRS contract needs a 62% increase, only two years in.

That is the only solid data point regarding cost overruns for the New.Space community so far.

As indicators go, I doubt anyone can see it as a favourable one.

Ross.

Which is why new space ought to realize that this budget is worse for them not better in the long term.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/10/2010 04:52 PM
New.Space likes Obama's budget plan primarily because it removes any chance of a Shuttle-Derived system being competition.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/10/2010 04:56 PM
The added 62% is for added missions or tests that aren't there right now, right? How is that a cost overrun?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/10/2010 04:59 PM
The added 62% is for added missions or tests that aren't there right now, right? How is that a cost overrun?

It clearly states it meant to reduce risk by adding additional testing.  Trust me, they are not doing this because everything is rosy and they want to just delay it for some reason.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 05:00 PM
Well idk about your estimates about the financial overruns, but given that such programs always run into problems like that it's probably inevitable. Still the overruns might not be so severe.


"Hope is not a plan"

How would a "commercial" cost overrun be different than a "government" one? I think they might be lower simply because the commercial folks will be trying as hard as they can to keep them low. That's how they're going to be competitive on the market after all - lower prices.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/10/2010 05:02 PM
Well idk about your estimates about the financial overruns, but given that such programs always run into problems like that it's probably inevitable. Still the overruns might not be so severe.


"Hope is not a plan"

How would a "commercial" cost overrun be different than a "government" one? I think they might be lower simply because the commercial folks will be trying as hard as they can to keep them low. That's how they're going to be competitive on the market - lower prices.

So define for me how this private/public partnership is going to work.  What role will NASA end up playing?  What requirements will be levied on them?  I could go on.

But, I bet you can't answer any of that.  No worries, no one else can either because it is still being defined.  Therefore no one can say what the costs around it will be. 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 05:03 PM
New.Space likes Obama's budget plan primarily because it removes any chance of a Shuttle-Derived system being competition.

Ross.
And they fail to realize that it also removes any hope of any exploration. And that it prepares NASA for its execution. And that both of those things would actually result in a huge LOSS of buisness in the long term. Seem like boeing sees the truth though, and I think Spacex does too. Remember that Elon stated before that he thought NASA should have a crew vehicle and launcher that work ALONG SIDE of companies like his.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/10/2010 05:04 PM
The added 62% is for added missions or tests that aren't there right now, right? How is that a cost overrun?

Incorrect.

That is an increase to cover the existing contract requirements for 12 deliveries to ISS using Space-X and 8 missions using Orbital.

The extra stuff is covered on a different budget line item.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 05:06 PM
Well idk about your estimates about the financial overruns, but given that such programs always run into problems like that it's probably inevitable. Still the overruns might not be so severe.


"Hope is not a plan"

How would a "commercial" cost overrun be different than a "government" one? I think they might be lower simply because the commercial folks will be trying as hard as they can to keep them low. That's how they're going to be competitive on the market - lower prices.

So define for me how this private/public partnership is going to work?  What role will NASA end up playing?  What requirements will be levied on them?  I could go on.

But, I bet you can't answer any of that.  No worries, no one else can either because it is still being defined.  Therefore no one can say what the costs around it will be. 
NASA would still end up footing the bill.  Lol, people don't seem to remember that you have to PAY commercial companies for things you cannot just have them DO something. Add to that the fact that NASA cannot FORCE them to do anything except meet certain safety requirements. Beyond that NASA cannot tell them what to do. And if there was a cost overrun at a commercial firm it would result in 1. bailout, 2 program cancellation, 3 bankrupt. I would remind everyone of Sea Launch.....
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 05:07 PM
So define for me how this private/public partnership is going to work?  What role will NASA end up playing?  What requirements will be levied on them?  I could go on.

They'll serve a regulatory function for the companies and still conduct science and exploration missions by purchasing their services to get to LEO. Least that's the goal.

But, I bet you can't answer any of that.  No worries, no one else can either because it is still being defined.  Therefore no one can say what the costs around it will be. 

I can't tell you what will happen for the simple reason that I can't see in the future. All we're doing is speculating at the moment.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/10/2010 05:08 PM
How would a "commercial" cost overrun be different than a "government" one?

The only real difference is in the way it is "sold" to the Congress and to the Tax-Payers.

Some companies get it with blessings.   Others get complained at for the same thing.

Unsurprisingly, the blessing/blame thing is typically based on the agenda of the person doing the talking.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 05:08 PM
The added 62% is for added missions or tests that aren't there right now, right? How is that a cost overrun?

Incorrect.

That is an increase to cover the existing contract requirements for 12 deliveries to ISS using Space-X and 8 missions using Orbital.

The extra stuff is covered on a different budget line item.

Ross.
Exactly :D
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/10/2010 05:11 PM
So define for me how this private/public partnership is going to work?  What role will NASA end up playing?  What requirements will be levied on them?  I could go on.

They'll serve a regulatory function for the companies and still conduct science and exploration missions by purchasing their services to get to LEO. Least that's the goal.

But, I bet you can't answer any of that.  No worries, no one else can either because it is still being defined.  Therefore no one can say what the costs around it will be. 

I can't tell you what will happen for the simple reason that I can't see in the future. All we're doing is speculating at the moment.

Ohhh.  So NASA is going to become the FAA of space and "regulate" all the companies going out and doing spaceflight.  I see now. 

Perhaps you are speculating.  I'm not.  I'm going off of first hand knowledge. 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 05:11 PM
How would a "commercial" cost overrun be different than a "government" one?

The only real difference is in the way it is "sold" to the Congress and to the Tax-Payers.

Some companies get it with blessings.   Others get complained at for the same thing.

Unsurprisingly, the blessing/blame thing is typically based on the agenda of the person doing the talking.

Ross.
If fy 2011 passed what do you think would happen the first time there is an overun, be it under commercial or the NASA STP (space tech program i.e. the big r&d game changing tech thingy).
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 05:12 PM
So define for me how this private/public partnership is going to work?  What role will NASA end up playing?  What requirements will be levied on them?  I could go on.

They'll serve a regulatory function for the companies and still conduct science and exploration missions by purchasing their services to get to LEO. Least that's the goal.

But, I bet you can't answer any of that.  No worries, no one else can either because it is still being defined.  Therefore no one can say what the costs around it will be. 

I can't tell you what will happen for the simple reason that I can't see in the future. All we're doing is speculating at the moment.

Ohhh.  So NASA is going to become the FAA of space and "regulate" all the companies going out and doing spaceflight.  I see now. 

Perhaps you are speculating.  I'm not.  I'm going off of first hand knowledge. 

LOL
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/10/2010 05:13 PM
Ross: Can you show me links to show that this added money isn't for NEW tests or added requirements? I don't disbelieve you, but I prefer data to hearsay.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 05:13 PM
NASA would still end up footing the bill.  Lol, people don't seem to remember that you have to PAY commercial companies for things you cannot just have them DO something.

Are you suggesting NASA just has contractors like LM and Boeing "DO something" without payment?

Add to that the fact that NASA cannot FORCE them to do anything except meet certain safety requirements. Beyond that NASA cannot tell them what to do.

NASA doesn't "force" contractors either. They make a contract and have them meet milestones, just like they're doing to the commercial guys.

And if there was a cost overrun at a commercial firm it would result in 1. bailout, 2 program cancellation, 3 bankrupt. I would remind everyone of Sea Launch.....

1. No. If they do that then it's not commercial space, it's business as usual.

2. So, stuff gets canceled all the time already. It's nothing new.

3. Again, if a business fails, that's what happens. And Sea Launch are planning to launch this year again IIRC.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 05:14 PM
Ohhh.  So NASA is going to become the FAA of space and "regulate" all the companies going out and doing spaceflight.  I see now. 

So making commercial companies meet safety requirements is a bad idea?

EDIT - I guess you missed this. Does the FAA do that?

They'll serve a regulatory function for the companies and still conduct science and exploration missions by purchasing their services to get to LEO. Least that's the goal.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Avron on 03/10/2010 05:16 PM
Lawmakers should rather fix the rot and go after the Banksters, then there would be more than enough to spend, and the economy would not be so trashed by bad banking practices, or was that lack of oversight, same could be said for NASA?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/10/2010 05:21 PM
Ohhh.  So NASA is going to become the FAA of space and "regulate" all the companies going out and doing spaceflight.  I see now. 

So making commercial companies meet safety requirements is a bad idea?

EDIT - I guess you missed this. Does the FAA do that?

They'll serve a regulatory function for the companies and still conduct science and exploration missions by purchasing their services to get to LEO. Least that's the goal.

No, that was my entire point.  You missed that and are now finally catching up.  The problem is no one knows how much oversight there will be.  Since oversight, can at least partially and potentially be defined by requirements levied on someone, those requirements first must exist.  They do not yet and are not expected to arrive until the end of this year.

While some documents exist, such as the ISS visiting vehicles document, that will only take you so far and a company has to balance how much engineering it does without knowing the requirements because it all may have to change. 

How's that?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 05:25 PM
OK, but this is a near term problem. Is NASA so slow that they can't come up with a set of requirements by the end of the year or sooner? They already have man rating standards so they can use that as a baseline.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 05:25 PM
NASA would still end up footing the bill.  Lol, people don't seem to remember that you have to PAY commercial companies for things you cannot just have them DO something.

Are you suggesting NASA just has contractors like LM and Boeing "DO something" without payment?

Add to that the fact that NASA cannot FORCE them to do anything except meet certain safety requirements. Beyond that NASA cannot tell them what to do.

NASA doesn't "force" contractors either. They make a contract and have them meet milestones, just like they're doing to the commercial guys.

And if there was a cost overrun at a commercial firm it would result in 1. bailout, 2 program cancellation, 3 bankrupt. I would remind everyone of Sea Launch.....

1. No. If they do that then it's not commercial space, it's business as usual.

2. So, stuff gets canceled all the time already. It's nothing new.

3. Again, if a business fails, that's what happens. And Sea Launch are planning to launch this year again IIRC.
1. "Are you suggesting NASA just has contractors like LM and Boeing "DO something" without payment?"
No, I am suggesting that cost savings under the new plan will be minimal because you still have to pay spacex, orbital, ect. to do things. Therefore you will save some money but overall savings as opposed to doing it the old way will not be as significant or "game changing" as they are being touted to be.
2. "NASA doesn't "force" contractors either. They make a contract and have them meet milestones, just like they're doing to the commercial guys." True but, What milestones where? Beyond cots and crs I see no milestones. After 2020, under the new plan, I see no reason to even have the commercial providers. Except for the fact that ULA, spacex, and Orbital can find buisness in launching things for other people and companies. Spacex launched a sattilite for the Malaysian government a while back. Perhaps other countries would be interested too?
3. "No. If they do that then it's not commercial space, it's business as usual."
 Which is what will happen under the new plan eventually one way or another.

4. "So, stuff gets canceled all the time already. It's nothing new."

If it happens under the new plan and its a spacecraft, like cygnus for example, that gets cut by its parent company because it is wrecking their buisness with overruns, it will not be "nothing new" it will put a serious dent in the ability of new space to carry out its objectives especially at ISS which is by far not a low maitenence place.

5. "3. Again, if a business fails, that's what happens. And Sea Launch are planning to launch this year again IIRC."
The irony of this comment has me laughing. The reason is simple. Its not "thats what happens". Under the new plan (fy 2011) if that happens it literally puts a massive whole in the entire thing. What if Spacex failed? That would be disasterous for the new plan and would significantly reduce both cargo and crew resupply capabilities to Iss. Same with Orbital, ULA, ect. You cannot just pass that off as "thats what happens", if you are going to support fy 2011 and the new plan you must understand that a key provider going under would be a disaster. And it would be hard for the remaining providers to pick up the slack.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/10/2010 05:26 PM
OK, but this is a near term problem. Is NASA so slow that they can't come up with a set of requirements by the end of the year or sooner? They already have man rating standards so they can use that as a baseline.

A near term problem, 6 months away, that has a direct impact on DDT&E of these "commercial" systems. 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/10/2010 05:28 PM
Everyone:
Right. So let's all just keep doing everything the same way it's going right now. After all, the colony on Mars is already out-competing Earth businesses. Their commercial ventures don't need any help from us. ::)

Seriously, is just doing everything the same as we have in the past a good idea? Is competition really so ineffective? I'm no libertarian and I understand there are huge macroeconomic inefficiencies in having an idle workforce, but what is really the point of NASA? Is it just to provide very high-paying jobs? Are we going anywhere other than LEO with the Shuttle (as amazing as it is)? Is there really no way to do transport to ISS cheaper than the Shuttle or Ares I? I mean, I understand that for many of you, you are in some really deep kimchi when it comes to your job. But there's a finite amount of money. Is it worth just doing what we're doing, or should we take a risk and actually try for something that will be far better in the long-term if it works out at all?

The alternative is a gradually reduced NASA budget. Heck, the POR means that Shuttle is retired THIS YEAR and ISS in 2015. Obama's budget is far better than that. The real issue is that people are finally realizing that their jobs are at stake. It's now crunch time, and it doesn't look good. So, people are understandably upset and are unfortunately lashing out at everything else.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/10/2010 05:30 PM
OK, but this is a near term problem. Is NASA so slow that they can't come up with a set of requirements by the end of the year or sooner? They already have man rating standards so they can use that as a baseline.

Oh yeah, and if you really knew about this stuff you'd understand requirements definition is critical.  It must be done correctly and right.  Otherwise, when requirements are not clearly defined, you increase your chances greatly for cost and schedule slips.  So, yes, the appropriate time should be taken. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requirements_analysis
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 05:31 PM
OK, but this is a near term problem. Is NASA so slow that they can't come up with a set of requirements by the end of the year or sooner? They already have man rating standards so they can use that as a baseline.
Then give them a new plan with key objectives and timelines and clean up the managment and its practices. Do not just throw money at them for unspecified r&d for no goals or timelines. Also the excuse that timelines should not be used because they cannot be met is both baseless and flawed. Everyone else in the world has timelines they must meet for things and they do. NASA has in the past and can again. But not without a plan. That goes for r&d as well. If you want them to do all this wonderful tech development they need an organized timeline and plan for doing it. Fy 2011 does not provide this.  I also have my doubts as to how far commercial will get without a plan too. The details of how to run the commercial crew vehicle contract competition or if there even would be one have not be specified in the new plan.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 05:34 PM
NASA would still end up footing the bill.  Lol, people don't seem to remember that you have to PAY commercial companies for things you cannot just have them DO something.

Are you suggesting NASA just has contractors like LM and Boeing "DO something" without payment?

Add to that the fact that NASA cannot FORCE them to do anything except meet certain safety requirements. Beyond that NASA cannot tell them what to do.

NASA doesn't "force" contractors either. They make a contract and have them meet milestones, just like they're doing to the commercial guys.

And if there was a cost overrun at a commercial firm it would result in 1. bailout, 2 program cancellation, 3 bankrupt. I would remind everyone of Sea Launch.....

1. No. If they do that then it's not commercial space, it's business as usual.

2. So, stuff gets canceled all the time already. It's nothing new.

3. Again, if a business fails, that's what happens. And Sea Launch are planning to launch this year again IIRC.
1. "Are you suggesting NASA just has contractors like LM and Boeing "DO something" without payment?"
No, I am suggesting that cost savings under the new plan will be minimal because you still have to pay spacex, orbital, ect. to do things. Therefore you will save some money but overall savings as opposed to doing it the old way will not be as significant or "game changing" as they are being touted to be.
2. "NASA doesn't "force" contractors either. They make a contract and have them meet milestones, just like they're doing to the commercial guys." True but, What milestones where? Beyond cots and crs I see no milestones. After 2020, under the new plan, I see no reason to even have the commercial providers. Except for the fact that ULA, spacex, and Orbital can find buisness in launching things for other people and companies. Spacex launched a sattilite for the Malaysian government a while back. Perhaps other countries would be interested too?
3. "No. If they do that then it's not commercial space, it's business as usual."
 Which is what will happen under the new plan eventually one way or another.

4. "So, stuff gets canceled all the time already. It's nothing new."

If it happens under the new plan and its a spacecraft, like cygnus for example, that gets cut by its parent company because it is wrecking their buisness with overruns, it will not be "nothing new" it will put a serious dent in the ability of new space to carry out its objectives especially at ISS which is by far not a low maitenence place.

5. "3. Again, if a business fails, that's what happens. And Sea Launch are planning to launch this year again IIRC."
The irony of this comment has me laughing. The reason is simple. Its not "thats what happens". Under the new plan (fy 2011) if that happens it literally puts a massive whole in the entire thing. What if Spacex failed? That would be disasterous for the new plan and would significantly reduce both cargo and crew resupply capabilities to Iss. Same with Orbital, ULA, ect. You cannot just pass that off as "thats what happens", if you are going to support fy 2011 and the new plan you must understand that a key provider going under would be a disaster. And it would be hard for the remaining providers to pick up the slack.

1. That's opinion, not a fact.

2. The milestones that will be laid out for the commercial guys are for LEO access. There aren't any milestones beyond that, because we don't know if they can handle LEO yet, let alone start planing way ahead.

3. Again, opinion, not fact.

4. It would put only Orbital out of the game. The others will continue. It's called a redundant capability, something you don't have with a single government launcher.

5. I said that I think the new plan would be reworked. Don't argue against me as if I am completely for it. And if the plan is reworked it would be in such a way that SpaceX's failure wouldn't result in a catastrophic loss in capability.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/10/2010 05:34 PM
Everyone:
Right. So let's all just keep doing everything the same way it's going right now. After all, the colony on Mars is already out-competing Earth businesses. Their commercial ventures don't need any help from us. ::)

Seriously, is just doing everything the same as we have in the past a good idea? Is competition really so ineffective? I'm no libertarian and I understand there are huge macroeconomic inefficiencies in having an idle workforce, but what is really the point of NASA? Is it just to provide very high-paying jobs? Are we going anywhere other than LEO with the Shuttle (as amazing as it is)? Is there really no way to do transport to ISS cheaper than the Shuttle or Ares I? I mean, I understand that for many of you, you are in some really deep kimchi when it comes to your job. But there's a finite amount of money. Is it worth just doing what we're doing, or should we take a risk and actually try for something that will be far better in the long-term if it works out at all?

The alternative is a gradually reduced NASA budget. Heck, the POR means that Shuttle is retired THIS YEAR and ISS in 2015. Obama's budget is far better than that. The real issue is that people are finally realizing that their jobs are at stake. It's now crunch time, and it doesn't look good. So, people are understandably upset and are unfortunately lashing out at everything else.

Oh...clearly you are right.  Thank you for making me see the light.  Lets risk it.  There's gotta be something better right?  Who cares if it doesn't exist yet!  Who cares if we don't even understand the requirements or the contracting structure yet!  It should be far, far better but of course there are no concrete plans around any of it yet to tell us why, but yeah, lets go for it. 

What people are *just* starting to realize their jobs are in danger?  Give me a break.....
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 05:37 PM
OK, but this is a near term problem. Is NASA so slow that they can't come up with a set of requirements by the end of the year or sooner? They already have man rating standards so they can use that as a baseline.
Then give them a new plan with key objectives and timelines and clean up the managment and its practices. Do not just throw money at them for unspecified r&d for no goals or timelines. Also the excuse that timelines should not be used because they cannot be met is both baseless and flawed. Everyone else in the world has timelines they must meet for things and they do. NASA has in the past and can again. But not without a plan. That goes for r&d as well. If you want them to do all this wonderful tech development they need an organized timeline and plan for doing it. Fy 2011 does not provide this.  I also have my doubts as to how far commercial will get without a plan too. The details of how to run the commercial crew vehicle contract competition or if there even would be one have not be specified in the new plan.

I fail to see how your reply addresses safety requirements. And again I DO NOT SUPPORT THE NEW PLAN AS IS! Stop straw maning me.

EDIT - I would like to see a shuttle extension so a commercial failure won't cripple ISS as you're afraid it might.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 05:37 PM
Everyone:
Right. So let's all just keep doing everything the same way it's going right now. After all, the colony on Mars is already out-competing Earth businesses. Their commercial ventures don't need any help from us. ::)

Seriously, is just doing everything the same as we have in the past a good idea? Is competition really so ineffective? I'm no libertarian and I understand there are huge macroeconomic inefficiencies in having an idle workforce, but what is really the point of NASA? Is it just to provide very high-paying jobs? Are we going anywhere other than LEO with the Shuttle (as amazing as it is)? Is there really no way to do transport to ISS cheaper than the Shuttle or Ares I? I mean, I understand that for many of you, you are in some really deep kimchi when it comes to your job. But there's a finite amount of money. Is it worth just doing what we're doing, or should we take a risk and actually try for something that will be far better in the long-term if it works out at all?

The alternative is a gradually reduced NASA budget. Heck, the POR means that Shuttle is retired THIS YEAR and ISS in 2015. Obama's budget is far better than that. The real issue is that people are finally realizing that their jobs are at stake. It's now crunch time, and it doesn't look good. So, people are understandably upset and are unfortunately lashing out at everything else.
Wrong on many many levels. This is taking the stance that its ethier all NASA, which would result in cancellation, or its all commercial, which would the "holy grail" of all space exploration. :P :P That is a very extreme position to take and it allows for no chance of sucess. One extreme or another will not work, it must be a middle of the road option that uses the good parts of both sides. EXAMPLE: Not ares 1, sdhlv, not sdhlv or orion to ISS, commercial to ISS (when they are online), not all NASA designed and built hardware or micromanagment of contractors more contractor freedom and less micromanagment; commercial designed componenets (like propellant depots), and finally: A SET OF CLEAR SET IN STONE DATES, GOALS, AND BETTER MANAGMENT. NO MORE CHANCE OF SEEING ANOTHER "GRIFFIN" TYPE MANAGER!
I do not want to keep doing things the way they are now I want something sustainble. Fy 2011 is not that. CXP is not that. Ares 1 or V is not that. All commercial is not that.
A compromise is.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 05:39 PM
OK, but this is a near term problem. Is NASA so slow that they can't come up with a set of requirements by the end of the year or sooner? They already have man rating standards so they can use that as a baseline.
Then give them a new plan with key objectives and timelines and clean up the managment and its practices. Do not just throw money at them for unspecified r&d for no goals or timelines. Also the excuse that timelines should not be used because they cannot be met is both baseless and flawed. Everyone else in the world has timelines they must meet for things and they do. NASA has in the past and can again. But not without a plan. That goes for r&d as well. If you want them to do all this wonderful tech development they need an organized timeline and plan for doing it. Fy 2011 does not provide this.  I also have my doubts as to how far commercial will get without a plan too. The details of how to run the commercial crew vehicle contract competition or if there even would be one have not be specified in the new plan.

I fail to see how your reply addresses safety requirements. And again I DO NOT SUPPORT THE NEW PLAN AS IS! Stop straw maning me.
Glad to know where you stand. A clearly defined set of goals, destinations, and a timeline will address safety better than a lofty program with no set dates. That goes for commercial too. As to how safety protocol will be implement for commercial vehicles, lvs, other equipment I do not know.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 05:44 PM
Glad to know where you stand. A clearly defined set of goals, destinations, and a timeline will address safety better than a lofty program with no set dates. That goes for commercial too. As to how safety protocol will be implement for commercial vehicles, lvs, other equipment I do not know.

I think the timelines and goals will be formed in the coming months after a compromise is reached so the strategy can be sound. Considering they are reworking the budget we can't expect them right away, though I do wonder if they will be satisfactory and realistic when they arrive. Regarding the goals of commercial they'll center around LEO. What I'm interested in is NASA's BEO goals.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/10/2010 05:53 PM
Everyone:
Right. So let's all just keep doing everything the same way it's going right now. After all, the colony on Mars is already out-competing Earth businesses. Their commercial ventures don't need any help from us. ::)

Seriously, is just doing everything the same as we have in the past a good idea? Is competition really so ineffective? I'm no libertarian and I understand there are huge macroeconomic inefficiencies in having an idle workforce, but what is really the point of NASA? Is it just to provide very high-paying jobs? Are we going anywhere other than LEO with the Shuttle (as amazing as it is)? Is there really no way to do transport to ISS cheaper than the Shuttle or Ares I? I mean, I understand that for many of you, you are in some really deep kimchi when it comes to your job. But there's a finite amount of money. Is it worth just doing what we're doing, or should we take a risk and actually try for something that will be far better in the long-term if it works out at all?

The alternative is a gradually reduced NASA budget. Heck, the POR means that Shuttle is retired THIS YEAR and ISS in 2015. Obama's budget is far better than that. The real issue is that people are finally realizing that their jobs are at stake. It's now crunch time, and it doesn't look good. So, people are understandably upset and are unfortunately lashing out at everything else.
Wrong on many many levels. This is taking the stance that its ethier all NASA, which would result in cancellation, or its all commercial, which would the "holy grail" of all space exploration. :P :P That is a very extreme position to take and it allows for no chance of sucess. One extreme or another will not work, it must be a middle of the road option that uses the good parts of both sides. EXAMPLE: Not ares 1, sdhlv, not sdhlv or orion to ISS, commercial to ISS (when they are online), not all NASA designed and built hardware or micromanagment of contractors more contractor freedom and less micromanagment; commercial designed componenets (like propellant depots), and finally: A SET OF CLEAR SET IN STONE DATES, GOALS, AND BETTER MANAGMENT. NO MORE CHANCE OF SEEING ANOTHER "GRIFFIN" TYPE MANAGER!
I do not want to keep doing things the way they are now I want something sustainble. Fy 2011 is not that. CXP is not that. Ares 1 or V is not that. All commercial is not that.
A compromise is.
So all this fire and fury is just because you think that this current plan isn't quite as good as you'd like?

Why the heck is everyone so worried around here? I don't see how the PoR was any better than FY2011. NASA is getting more money. It seems like a net win, compared to the PoR. So, we have non-guaranteed commercial crew servicing of the ISS starting in 2015. That's far better than a COMPLETELY guaranteed deorbiting of the ISS by 2015, if you think the ISS has any value. And I don't see how going to the Moon like we did for Apollo is any better if we don't go sustainably. Hey, maybe you argue DIRECT is a better plan. Fair enough. But don't pretend the FY2011 proposal is the worst thing in the world.

I grant that the FY2011 proposal has more risk in some areas than some other plans. But there are no guarantees in life, let alone space. I guarantee we will never get to Mars without some of the expansive R&D programs outlined in the FY2011 proposal.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/10/2010 06:09 PM
If fy 2011 passed what do you think would happen the first time there is an overun, be it under commercial or the NASA STP (space tech program i.e. the big r&d game changing tech thingy).

Same as always:   Money would be stripped from another department to pay for the essential stuff :(

Are there not already laws regarding government contracts which go over budget?

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/10/2010 06:23 PM
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2010_record&page=S1254&position=all

Nelson's speech begins halfway down the middle column
Hmmm...seems to be a little further definition/emphasis of his middle ground position (not sure if it's going to be the only position that gets staked out).  Sure seems to be a different position than the emphasis of the S 3068 bill.

He also noted again that his subcommittee will be having a hearing about "commercial rocket competitors."
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 03/10/2010 06:27 PM
Cost overruns - same with govt devel. Best way to make it work is multiple concurrent projects with good oversight. Nothing new.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: neilh on 03/10/2010 07:59 PM
The added 62% is for added missions or tests that aren't there right now, right? How is that a cost overrun?

Incorrect.

That is an increase to cover the existing contract requirements for 12 deliveries to ISS using Space-X and 8 missions using Orbital.

The extra stuff is covered on a different budget line item.

Ross.

This is mostly incorrect, and they haven't announced yet how exactly they'll allocate the additional $312 million. I suspect the additional milestones and capabilities NASA will demand will depend on things like how the upcoming flights go. From the FY2011 exploration budget:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main_Exploration.pdf
Quote
This budget allocates $312.0 million in FY 2011 for incentivizing NASA’s current commercial cargo program to improve the chance of mission success by adding or accelerating the achievement of already-planned milestones, adding additional capabilities, or tests that may ultimately expedite the pace of development of cargo flights to the ISS. Risk reduction activities may include adding milestones to complete the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to identify early risks. Accelerating enhanced capabilities may include adding milestones for early development of items such as the high energy engine for Orbital’s Taurus II upper stage, and Block 2 engine upgrades SpaceX’s Falcon 9; a demonstration flight may be added to validate the upgrades. NASA will continue to evaluate the Cargo Resupply Services (CRS) contract to determine if funds can be used to accelerate hardware fabrication and assembly of the CRS vehicles.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/10/2010 08:35 PM

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main_Exploration.pdf
Quote
This budget allocates $312.0 million in FY 2011 for incentivizing NASA’s current commercial cargo program  to improve the chance of mission success by adding or accelerating the achievement of already-planned milestones, adding additional capabilities, or tests that may ultimately expedite the pace of development of cargo flights to the ISS. quote]
Are we doing this again??

See in BOLD. Very plain to see.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: neilh on 03/10/2010 09:27 PM

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main_Exploration.pdf
Quote
This budget allocates $312.0 million in FY 2011 for incentivizing NASA’s current commercial cargo program  to improve the chance of mission success by adding or accelerating the achievement of already-planned milestones, adding additional capabilities, or tests that may ultimately expedite the pace of development of cargo flights to the ISS. quote]
Are we doing this again??

See in BOLD. Very plain to see.

Why didn't you bold the rest of the sentence?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/10/2010 09:30 PM

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main_Exploration.pdf
Quote
This budget allocates $312.0 million in FY 2011 for incentivizing NASA’s current commercial cargo program  to improve the chance of mission success by adding or accelerating the achievement of already-planned milestones, adding additional capabilities, or[/u] tests that may ultimately expedite the pace of development of cargo flights to the ISS. quote
Are we doing this again??

See in BOLD. Very plain to see.

Why didn't you bold the rest of the sentence?

because of 'OR'
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/10/2010 10:40 PM
Are there not already laws regarding government contracts which go over budget?

Ross.

Not if the cost increases are for new work and new milestones.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Danderman on 03/10/2010 10:42 PM
EDIT - I would like to see a shuttle extension so a commercial failure won't cripple ISS as you're afraid it might.

Its reasonable to assume that the commercial guys will suffer some delays, its endemic to this business.

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/10/2010 10:54 PM
If you are accelerating an already-planned milestone, you are paying the customer to deliver sooner than originally negotiated. Thus, you are changing the requirements.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/10/2010 11:22 PM
Press release on the introduction of what I assume to be mostly the same bill in the House:
http://www.kosmas.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=269&Itemid=65
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/10/2010 11:31 PM
If you are accelerating an already-planned milestone, you are paying the customer to deliver sooner than originally negotiated. Thus, you are changing the requirements.

Well since the original milestone targets have already come and gone, that's somewhat a mute point.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Mark S on 03/10/2010 11:35 PM
Here you go Danderman, the co-sponsors (in the House at least) that you have been waiting for:

Press release from Rep. Kosmas (http://www.kosmas.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=269&Itemid=65)

Quote
In addition to Kosmas and Posey, original cosponsors of the bill include Representatives Corrine Brown (D-FL), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Jim Costa (D-CA), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Ron Klein (D-FL), Stephen LaTourette (R-OH), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), John Mica (R-FL), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Adam Putnam (R-FL), and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL).

Most co-sponsors are from AL, FL, and TX, but there are a few others too.

People are starting to wake up to what is going on. Finally.

Cheers!
Mark S.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/10/2010 11:38 PM
If you are accelerating an already-planned milestone, you are paying the customer to deliver sooner than originally negotiated. Thus, you are changing the requirements.

Well since the original milestone targets have already come and gone, that's somewhat a mute point.

AND it's a convenient way of 're-branding' an existing issue so that's passes.

Of course with a shuttle extension we don't need an accelerated cargo schedule...  ;)  (we save $312M) !
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: simonbp on 03/11/2010 02:54 AM
Quote
In addition to Kosmas and Posey, original cosponsors of the bill include Representatives Corrine Brown (D-FL), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Jim Costa (D-CA), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Ron Klein (D-FL), Stephen LaTourette (R-OH), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), John Mica (R-FL), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Adam Putnam (R-FL), and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL).

Note that they are all either Democrats or Republicans from states that voted for Obama in 2008. Hopefully someone in the White House will take note of the correlation...
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Lonestar1 on 03/11/2010 03:16 AM

At this stage you have "camps" at the extreme edges of "PoR" or bust and "Bold New Idea" with many of the influential folks and key players taking those positions--now. But when it becomes clear, as I believe it will, that neither of those are going to be sustainable, then a mddle ground will be sought.

51D Mascot,  how is this bill, which includes every big-ticket, big-government item imaginable, a "middle ground"?

The difference between the Plan of Record and the "Bold New Idea," as you call it, isn't just what the rocket looks like.

The "New Idea" is making spaceflight less expensive, so NASA can break out of the rut it's been in for the last 50 years. We used to call that "progress." I didn't think it was a new idea. It's the way we've operated in other areas -- aviation, the computer industry, etc. -- all along, but for some reason it scares people when it's applied to space.

Continuing Orion, building a new superheavy lift rocket, etc. will make it impossible for NASA to achieve any significant cost reductions or do anything new in space. Even if NASA manages to land a man on the Moon again, 60 years after it landed a man on the Moon, it will have achieved nothing that it hasn't done before. General Bolden's vision of NASA astronauts going everywhere in the inner solar system, thousands of people living and working in Low Earth Orbit, etc. will be lost. NASA will lose its position of leadership of leadership and be surpassed, either by foreign nations or by private companies that are not afraid to try things that are new. The benefits of this are, what -- a short-term injection or to a few districts in Florida and Alabama and South Texas?

Given the choice between making spaceflight common and affordable, or keeping it expensive and rare, making spaceflight even more expensive is not a middle ground.


Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/11/2010 03:23 AM
Lonestar,

The answer to your question is in the question itself.  How do you honestly expect us to get from where we are today to what you just described above, in less time than the "POR", yet for less money?

Progress does not mean stopping everything for some unspecified amount of time and then having someone, somewhere at some point in the future arbitrarily declaring that the "game-changing technologies" are now here and that all of the sudden we just move in mass exodus into the solar system.

Furthermore, to use your examples above, does the computer or aviation industries stop doing what they were doing for an unspecified amount of time to go off and chase something new or do they follow on evolutionary approach and build on what has come before it and use that experience?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kraisee on 03/11/2010 03:25 AM
Lonestar1,
Your information is in error.

A Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle is capable of lowering costs to LEO to below $3,000 per kilogram.   And those numbers are all based on the existing 4-seg costs, the existing SSME costs, existing ET costs (modified) and existing launch operations costs, so they are extremely high-confidence costing figures from an active, existing, program.

There is absolutely nothing in the US now, or currently planned (including Falcon-9 and Falcon-9 Heavy), which even hopes to get launch costs down below that level.

Even the Russian Proton isn't that cost effective.   The Chinese Shenzhou might be about that low, but costs for that are difficult to obtain with any degree of confidence.


Another potential saving would be to commercialize the SD-HLV solution, turning the whole operation over to the contractors and reducing NASA oversight considerably.   If operated in a very similar "hands off" milestone-based manner to CRS and CCDev, the cost savings for an SD-HLV could be as much as 40% off the figure listed above.   That's $1,800 per kg to LEO.   That would certainly qualify as "game changing" in my book.

Ross.
Title: Re: Lawmakers phtroduce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 03/11/2010 03:30 AM
No one wants to publicly drop the D word:  DIRECT

May come soon tho.

VR
RS327
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: rjholling on 03/11/2010 03:49 AM
Lonestar1 how is a SD HLV not game changing enough for you?  We could have built the ISS for a fraction of what was spent using space shuttles if we had it 15 years ago.  Any successful R&D program is driven by what is required for production not the other way around!
Title: Re: Lawmakers phtroduce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: rjholling on 03/11/2010 03:50 AM
No one wants to publicly drop the D word:  DIRECT

May come soon tho.

VR
RS327
I thought it was pretty much implicit in the bill.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: jimgagnon on 03/11/2010 03:52 AM
The answer to your question is in the question itself.  How do you honestly expect us to get from where we are today to what you just described above, in less time than the "POR", yet for less money?

By having multiple players working the field, each with its own set of innovations and drives, you can accomplish far more than a single player, even if that player is the Federal government. Also, as private industry and capitalism works by different rules than the Feds, you have more varied mechanisms for making things happen; eg: Federal government could have never delivered Iridium for $25M, yet free enterprise did.

Any legislation that works to undermine this new commercial process is simply working to preserve the status quo of $10K/kg launch costs; I believe that to be LoneStar1's concern. The European's have shown us that competition in the launch market works: they match the going rate of $4K/kg despite having high labor costs, socialized health care, etc, etc. We can do it as well.

Furthermore, to use your examples above, does the computer or aviation industries stop doing what they were doing for an unspecified amount of time to go off and chase something new or do they follow on evolutionary approach and build on what has come before it and use that experience?

Actually, there are several examples of game-changing technology that have transformed entire industries: the transistor and the jet engine are an excellent examples. A priori these technological innovations are impossible to predict; what is important is to foster an environment where money and resources are devoted to the search for them -- exactly the opposite of what the "PoR" was doing with its emphasis on tried and true, and its continual budget raids.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Lonestar1 on 03/11/2010 05:21 AM
How do you honestly expect us to get from where we are today to what you just described above, in less time than the "POR", yet for less money?

By doing things more cost-effectively, of course. Which isn't very hard to do, when the POR called for spending tens of billions of dollars to replace the Space Shuttle with a system that was more expensive.

Progress does not mean stopping everything for some unspecified amount of time and then having someone, somewhere at some point in the future arbitrarily declaring that the "game-changing technologies" are now here and that all of the sudden we just move in mass exodus into the solar system.

No, that wouldn't be progress -- that would be the Plan of Record. NASA was going to shut down the Space Shuttle, drop the International Space Station into the ocean, just so it could send its few remaining astronauts to the Moon in a giant space capsule. Except there was no game-changing technology.

Under General Bolden's plan, NASA will continue to operate the International Space Station, enhance its abilities with new research facilities like the long-planned animal centrifuge, and possibly expand the station with new inflatible modules. Commercial space transportation providers will shorten the gap in American spaceflight to ISS, and competition from multiple companies will help keep costs down. NASA will work with private companies to develop orbital propellant depots that will reduce or eliminate the need for new, expensive heavy lift vehicles for missions to the inner solar system. Companies like SpaceX, Boeing, and Bigelow will be developing capsules and modules that will be readily adaptable to interplanetary missions. Centennial Challenges will be encouraging the development of new companies and new ideas. Commercial ReUsable Suborbital Research will make space research available to scientists who could never afford it before. NASA's Near Earth Asteroid programs will seek out and develop methods of deflecting asteroid threats, thus avoiding possible global exctinction events.

Does that not seem worth doing?


Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Dasun on 03/11/2010 05:25 AM
Lonestar1, I wished I lived in your world as I rather consider the reality will be no BEO HSF by NASA for decades to come.  All I see is Commercial LEO Taxis to ISS and steadily reducing NASA budgets.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: ChrisSpaceCH on 03/11/2010 06:00 AM
Lonestar1, I wished I lived in your world as I rather consider the reality will be no BEO HSF by NASA for decades to come.  All I see is Commercial LEO Taxis to ISS and steadily reducing NASA budgets.

Welcome to reality. Isn't that what Analyst and others here (and sometimes even me) have been saying for ages?

Sucks to always be right... :P
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/11/2010 06:06 AM
Lonestar1, I wished I lived in your world as I rather consider the reality will be no BEO HSF by NASA for decades to come.  All I see is Commercial LEO Taxis to ISS and steadily reducing NASA budgets.

Welcome to reality. Isn't that what Analyst and others here (and sometimes even me) have been saying for ages?

Sucks to always be right... :P

"Constellation" was virtually the last chance to get going from LEO -- but of course, many of us on this fine forum (and elsewhere) said as long as 3, maybe even 4 years ago that they (NASA, Griffin etc) were getting it wrong and that it would all end in tears. "Sucks to be right" is almost an understatement... :( :( :(

"Low Earth Orbit is a PRISON: It's time for a JAILBREAK!!"
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Lonestar1 on 03/11/2010 06:38 AM
A Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle is capable of lowering costs to LEO to below $3,000 per kilogram. And those numbers are all based on the existing 4-seg costs, the existing SSME costs, existing ET costs (modified) and existing launch operations costs, so they are extremely high-confidence costing figures from an active, existing, program

The costs of the active program are why it's possible to state with very high confidence that a Shuttle-Derived Vehicle won't be cheap. Basing a future launch system on existing high-cost components is a bug, not a feature.

Given the R&D costs and very low flight rate, it's hard to justify investment in any super heavy lifter. Adding the maintenance costs of the Shuttle infrastructure only makes it worse.

There is absolutely nothing in the US now, or currently planned (including Falcon-9 and Falcon-9 Heavy), which even hopes to get launch costs down below that level.

You're obviously not familar with the full range of plans that are out there. Falcon 9 is not the only concept, and it's certainly not the cheapest.

Capsules and expendable rockets are not the only way to get into space. They're a stop-gap at best, a dead-end at worst.

Another potential saving would be to commercialize the SD-HLV solution, turning the whole operation over to the contractors and reducing NASA oversight considerably.   If operated in a very similar "hands off" milestone-based manner to CRS and CCDev, the cost savings for an SD-HLV could be as much as 40% off the figure listed above.   That's $1,800 per kg to LEO.   That would certainly qualify as "game changing" in my book.

There's no way a Shuttle-derived Vehicle could ever be commercialized without massive government subsidies.

Extremely expensive rockets are not a game-changing technology. Unless the game you're talking about is killing off space development for another 50 years. 



Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Lonestar1 on 03/11/2010 06:43 AM
Lonestar1, I wished I lived in your world as I rather consider the reality will be no BEO HSF by NASA for decades to come.  All I see is Commercial LEO Taxis to ISS and steadily reducing NASA budgets.

Yes, this world is much less sucky than the mirror universe. Tell me, does your Spock still have his beard?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: neilh on 03/11/2010 06:58 AM
If you are accelerating an already-planned milestone, you are paying the customer to deliver sooner than originally negotiated. Thus, you are changing the requirements.

Well since the original milestone targets have already come and gone, that's somewhat a mute point.

AND it's a convenient way of 're-branding' an existing issue so that's passes.

Of course with a shuttle extension we don't need an accelerated cargo schedule...  ;)  (we save $312M) !

Darn logic!  ;)

The logic is to spend an additional $2.4B a year to save $312M?

(Again, I support a short shuttle extension, but primarily in the interest of mitigating the impact on the workforce)
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Lonestar1 on 03/11/2010 07:06 AM
Lonestar1 how is a SD HLV not game changing enough for you? 

An SD HLV is game changing, the same way a broken leg is game changing. We need to make human spaceflight cheaper, not more expensive.

We could have built the ISS for a fraction of what was spent using space shuttles if we had it 15 years ago.

Not that old chestnut again. ISS has a total launch weight of almost 800,000 pounds. Even if it were feasible to build a rocket that big, and you could find a place to launch it from, what would you do with it afterward? And what are you going to do when you decide you want to build something larger than ISS? Develop an even bigger rocket?

Furthermore, if we had launched ISS on the Mother Of All Rockets, we would not have learned anything about space assembly, which is probably the biggest return we have gotten from ISS.

Either we're serious about space development, or we aren't. If you believe mankind should never have more than one space station, never build anything more ambitious than ISS, and never learn how to work in space, then a super heavy lifter might be a good idea. I don't believe that.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/11/2010 07:30 AM
So how many of the recent posters here actually work in this business?  How many know what it really takes to get into space?  How many really understand the engineering, support, financing, etc?

I do.  I'm tired of hearing amateurs go around playing "armchair quaterback" and using words like "more cost effective", "game-changing", "it won't be hard to do", "unleasing the power of commercial space" when you don't provide anything more than throwing out buzz words and stones at everyone else and clearly you have no frame of reference from which to intelligently speak
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/11/2010 07:41 AM
If you are accelerating an already-planned milestone, you are paying the customer to deliver sooner than originally negotiated. Thus, you are changing the requirements.

Well since the original milestone targets have already come and gone, that's somewhat a mute point.

AND it's a convenient way of 're-branding' an existing issue so that's passes.

Of course with a shuttle extension we don't need an accelerated cargo schedule...  ;)  (we save $312M) !

Darn logic!  ;)

The logic is to spend an additional $2.4B a year to save $312M?

(Again, I support a short shuttle extension, but primarily in the interest of mitigating the impact on the workforce)

Where did you get those numbers from?  Are those the most current projections on what it would take to run the shuttle program?  Did you get that from an official source?  Does that take into account any synergies from a potential SDHLV or does that factor out the infrastructure cost that must be paid regardless?

The answer is it does not.

Furthermore, we do not know what we are exactly going to get with COTS.  Throwing more money at it for the sake of doing so at this point because the powers that be are scared out of their pants knowing the terrible mistake about to be made is not is not adequate justification when you have an operational vehicle now that was always meant to do the job in the first place.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/11/2010 07:47 AM
The answer to your question is in the question itself.  How do you honestly expect us to get from where we are today to what you just described above, in less time than the "POR", yet for less money?

By having multiple players working the field, each with its own set of innovations and drives, you can accomplish far more than a single player, even if that player is the Federal government. Also, as private industry and capitalism works by different rules than the Feds, you have more varied mechanisms for making things happen; eg: Federal government could have never delivered Iridium for $25M, yet free enterprise did.

Any legislation that works to undermine this new commercial process is simply working to preserve the status quo of $10K/kg launch costs; I believe that to be LoneStar1's concern. The European's have shown us that competition in the launch market works: they match the going rate of $4K/kg despite having high labor costs, socialized health care, etc, etc. We can do it as well.

Furthermore, to use your examples above, does the computer or aviation industries stop doing what they were doing for an unspecified amount of time to go off and chase something new or do they follow on evolutionary approach and build on what has come before it and use that experience?

Actually, there are several examples of game-changing technology that have transformed entire industries: the transistor and the jet engine are an excellent examples. A priori these technological innovations are impossible to predict; what is important is to foster an environment where money and resources are devoted to the search for them -- exactly the opposite of what the "PoR" was doing with its emphasis on tried and true, and its continual budget raids.

Your arguments are irrelevant.  Nothing anyone can say will change that.

On your second point, if you actually read the post before trying to jump all over it, you would see that the transitor and jet engine are not good examples.  We did not stop using vacuum tubes in everything to go invent the transistor or did not stop flying planes in order to go invent the jet engine.  With this current plan that is what we are doing....quiting for then someone, at some point to then decide we can proceed.  In addition this has nothing to do with the "POR". 
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/11/2010 07:56 AM
How do you honestly expect us to get from where we are today to what you just described above, in less time than the "POR", yet for less money?

By doing things more cost-effectively, of course. Which isn't very hard to do, when the POR called for spending tens of billions of dollars to replace the Space Shuttle with a system that was more expensive.

Progress does not mean stopping everything for some unspecified amount of time and then having someone, somewhere at some point in the future arbitrarily declaring that the "game-changing technologies" are now here and that all of the sudden we just move in mass exodus into the solar system.

No, that wouldn't be progress -- that would be the Plan of Record. NASA was going to shut down the Space Shuttle, drop the International Space Station into the ocean, just so it could send its few remaining astronauts to the Moon in a giant space capsule. Except there was no game-changing technology.

Under General Bolden's plan, NASA will continue to operate the International Space Station, enhance its abilities with new research facilities like the long-planned animal centrifuge, and possibly expand the station with new inflatible modules. Commercial space transportation providers will shorten the gap in American spaceflight to ISS, and competition from multiple companies will help keep costs down. NASA will work with private companies to develop orbital propellant depots that will reduce or eliminate the need for new, expensive heavy lift vehicles for missions to the inner solar system. Companies like SpaceX, Boeing, and Bigelow will be developing capsules and modules that will be readily adaptable to interplanetary missions. Centennial Challenges will be encouraging the development of new companies and new ideas. Commercial ReUsable Suborbital Research will make space research available to scientists who could never afford it before. NASA's Near Earth Asteroid programs will seek out and develop methods of deflecting asteroid threats, thus avoiding possible global exctinction events.

Does that not seem worth doing?




Why is it not very hard to do?  Give me specifics.  Define "more cost effective".  Seems fairly subjective to me. 

Define game-changing technology.  Who decides what is that and what is not that?  Clearly some may think something is, some may not.  Who's right?  You can't use past examples of breakthroughs either because you have history to validate them.  You are a program manager and it your job to go make "game-changing" technology.  Where do you start?  What are your objectives?  How long will it take before you have results?  What will your needed budget profile be for how many years in order to make it "game-changing"?  Once it is invented, how long will you require to validate it, transfer it to another entity so that it can be used in an operational state?

For the rest of that paragraph, where exactly do you get all of that?  There is no documentation except the budget, which is a proprosal from the Administration and uses only some of what you mention above as "possible examples".  It specifically states that.  There are no contracts for any of this and therefore you cannot say any of that will happen.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: shuttlefanatic on 03/11/2010 09:12 AM

By having multiple players working the field, each with its own set of innovations and drives, you can accomplish far more than a single player, even if that player is the Federal government. Also, as private industry and capitalism works by different rules than the Feds, you have more varied mechanisms for making things happen; eg: Federal government could have never delivered Iridium for $25M, yet free enterprise did.


I agree with some of your sentiments, but let's get the facts straight:

The original Iridium program bankrupted itself after reportedly spending in excess of $5B lofting satellites.  A group of private investors bought the remnants for the aforementioned $25M.  Good deal for them.

It would be rather interesting if after NASA and the ESA spending $100B+ on the ISS, a private investment group could eventually offer to take over operations for a few billion instead of having it be deorbited.

I'm a big fan of Burt Rutan's accomplishments with the SpaceShipOne program.  The rumored cost of the program was $20M.  Some NASA employees down the highway at DFRC supposedly said "Heh.  For $20M we would have delivered a feasibility study that said it wasn't possible!"  But the price tag for Virgin Galactic's commercial venture is $200k/ride.  And that's just for a sub-orbital flight. 

Call me a pessimist.  I believe it's going to years - decades - before private industry will loft a viable man-rated orbital spacecraft.  And certainly not without some - er - casualties along the way.  Men on Mars?  Probably not in my lifetime (I'm 36).  There's just no political will, and therefore no money, to accomplish that.  I hope to be proven wrong...
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Lonestar1 on 03/11/2010 09:52 AM
Why is it not very hard to do?  Give me specifics.  Define "more cost effective".  Seems fairly subjective to me. 

No, cost effectiveness is not "fairly subjective". It's objective and quantifiable. Someone "working in this business" should know that.

Sorry to be blunt, but since you elected to insult me and others, I don't feel inclined to give you a remedial class in engineering economics. As I used to tell students, I'm not here to do your homework.

It isn't hard to be more cost-effective than the Plan of Record because the cost of the PoR is so high and the results so low that almost any plan would score higher. Even simply continuing to fly the Shuttle.

Define game-changing technology. 

Define polite request, or did you miss the class on common courtesy as well?

If you don't know what game-changing technology is, I don't think I can tell you. I could give you the game-theoretic definition, but that would be like telling you the color blue is between 4100 and 4900 angstroms. If you can't see it for yourself, you'll never really know. It's "the vision thing."

Reading Clayton Christenson's book, "The Innovator's Dilemma," might be some help.

As for who decides which technologies are game-changing, the answer is Major General Charles Bolden, or those he delegates the responsibility to.

You are a program manager and it your job to go make "game-changing" technology.  Where do you start?  What are your objectives?  How long will it take before you have results?  What will your needed budget profile be for how many years in order to make it "game-changing"?  Once it is invented, how long will you require to validate it, transfer it to another entity so that it can be used in an operational state?   

That's not exactly my job, but you are very close. Beyond that -- I'm sorry, but there is no "cookbook approach." Every case is different. That's what makes it so challenging.

For the rest of that paragraph, where exactly do you get all of that?  There is no documentation except the budget, which is a proprosal from the Administration and uses only some of what you mention above as "possible examples".  It specifically states that.  There are no contracts for any of this and therefore you cannot say any of that will happen.

Just because you haven't seen a document doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just because something isn't written down doesn't mean it hasn't been decided, and just because something is in writing doesn't always mean it's true. I learn a lot more from talking to people than gets printed in the funny papers. I didn't say any of that was going to happen -- the old guard and ther special interests could screw it all up -- but that's the vision, and it's a vision worth fighting for.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/11/2010 12:09 PM
Some additional comments from John Shannon in the SpacePolitics blog;
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/03/10/hanging-on-to-the-shuttle/

Those are in the comments section to the blog.  Posts are linked directly, but you can search for "John Shannon wrote @ March 10th, 2010 at 11:04 pm"
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: MP99 on 03/11/2010 12:50 PM
There is absolutely nothing in the US now, or currently planned (including Falcon-9 and Falcon-9 Heavy), which even hopes to get launch costs down below that level.

You're obviously not familar with the full range of plans that are out there. Falcon 9 is not the only concept, and it's certainly not the cheapest.

Capsules and expendable rockets are not the only way to get into space. They're a stop-gap at best, a dead-end at worst.

Is this hush-hush, or should I have heard of this project?

How far along are they?

Thanks, Martin
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: kkattula on 03/11/2010 12:56 PM
Some additional comments from John Shannon in the SpacePolitics blog;
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/03/10/hanging-on-to-the-shuttle/

Those are in the comments section to the blog.  Posts are linked directly, but you can search for "John Shannon wrote @ March 10th, 2010 at 11:04 pm"


Key points I took out of that:

1)  He's not disputing Garver's statement. More putting it in context. The sense in SSP is it's too late to extend, unless an awful lot changes, including extra money.

2) Re-hiring workers for Shuttle extension would only be conscionable if an SD HLV was to be developed in parallel.

The Senator Hutchison bill seems to be cognizant of both points.

Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/11/2010 01:36 PM
There is absolutely nothing in the US now, or currently planned (including Falcon-9 and Falcon-9 Heavy), which even hopes to get launch costs down below that level.

You're obviously not familar with the full range of plans that are out there. Falcon 9 is not the only concept, and it's certainly not the cheapest.

Capsules and expendable rockets are not the only way to get into space. They're a stop-gap at best, a dead-end at worst.

Is this hush-hush, or should I have heard of this project?

How far along are they?

I think that he's referring (initially) to DreamChaser and (ultimately) to hypothetical fantasy RLVs.  They are all entirely pretty PowerPoint illustrations and, on occasion, full-scale carbon-fiber mock-ups.

Ten years away, minimum.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: robertross on 03/11/2010 01:40 PM

Of course with a shuttle extension we don't need an accelerated cargo schedule...  ;)  (we save $312M) !

Darn logic!  ;)

The logic is to spend an additional $2.4B a year to save $312M?

(Again, I support a short shuttle extension, but primarily in the interest of mitigating the impact on the workforce)

As a follow-on to OV-106's later response (even though this has been said and hashed out so many times now):

1) It's not $2.4B, but even if it was it's not simply about workforce. We face a serious shortfall in logistics to ISS even with existing commercial cargo contracts.

2) Ramping up to greater ISS utilization means more logistics. If we have a shortfall now, this will add increased pressure.

3) The ORU issue. It's been debated so often now I see no need to do that again. If they find an additional array is needed, best thing to fly it up there is the shuttle, second is a SSPDM using a SD-HLV which can also accomodate MPLMs and other pre-made shuttle carrier devices & payloads.

4) Direct (excuse the pum) synergy to a BEO HLV.

Now we can go back and forth and pick apart each post ad-finitum, but those are the realities. So the $312M saved is correct with respect to a shuttle extension. It also helps moving to a simple SD-HLV like J-120 or J-130 for now.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: phantomdj on 03/11/2010 02:07 PM
phantom,
I believe he actually said that there would be a two year gap in tank production, not the flights themselves.

He knows better than anyone, that the manifest can be moved around to cover that gap, should it be necessary.


But nobody is actually proposing to build any more new ET's.   The only thing we need, is to finish and fly all FIVE of the ones for which all the parts are currently in-stock and which are in various stages of completion right now, but which are not currently manifested to fly:

Current Manifest:

ET-135 = STS-131
ET-136 = STS-132
ET-137 = STS-134
ET-138 = STS-133
ET-122 = LON-335 (could be re-tasked to STS-135)

Additional In-Stock Tank Assemblies Which Can Be Readied To Fly:

ET-139 (in-stock, partially assembled)
ET-140 (in-stock, partially assembled)
ET-141 (in-stock, partially assembled)
ET-95 (in-stock, almost complete)

And if you look on L2 there is talk of another fully-built LWT tank which can also be made ready to fly, but I'll leave that to L2 members to learn all those details as they are still very fresh.

Ross.

I agree but the reason I asked about the extra tanks was that John Shannon, the shuttle program manager makes it sound like there would be a 2 year flight gap when there would not be.

He said, "Right now we estimate that gap would be about two years from when we're told (to start) to when we'd have the first external tank rolling off the assembly line…You could address that in many different ways, by slowing down the shuttle program until that two years was up or you'd just accept that gap and do other things."

He doesn’t even mention the extra tanks in partial completion and makes it sound like we would be starting from scratch.  It is kind of misleading to the public, the press and congress.  With these extra tanks a slow down might not even be necessary although prudent.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/11/2010 02:12 PM
I believe we'll be able to help with overviewing this all tomorrow. It relates to the certification of a new foam for the new tanks, including the part-built tanks (there's your problem). But there's relief with yet another completed tank at MAF (past ET-122), which you would combine with a stretch and have no gap even in the long-lead situation of the foam certification timelime (which is currently a few years)....and even then that's a conservative certification timeline.

Clear as mud? ;)

Have a lot of asking around to do, but should have it all lined up by tomorrow, as we should have all the extension study (this week) findings by end of today.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: marsavian on 03/11/2010 02:34 PM
Kosmas and Posey Introduce Bill to Minimize Human Spaceflight Gap

http://www.kosmas.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=269&Itemid=1

March 10, 2010

Bipartisan Legislation Would Help Maintain U.S. Leadership in Space

(Washington, DC) – Today, Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24) and Congressman Bill Posey (FL-15) introduced legislation to maintain a robust human spaceflight program, minimize the spaceflight gap, and protect Space Coast jobs. 

The Human Spaceflight Capability Assurance and Protection Act would extend use of the International Space Station (ISS) through 2020, allow NASA to continue flying the Space Shuttle, and push to accelerate a next-generation NASA-developed space vehicle.  A companion bill has been introduced by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) in the U.S. Senate.

“This bill is intended to maintain a robust human spaceflight program that will protect Space Coast jobs, enhance our national security, and generate scientific and technological advances that boost our economy,” said Congresswoman Kosmas. “While most agree that use of the Space Station should be extended through 2020, there is only one existing vehicle that we know can fully service and support the ISS, and that is the Shuttle.  Our bill would extend the life of the ISS while allowing the Shuttle to continue flying in order to provide whatever support is needed for that extension.” 

“At the same time, our legislation fills in some of what we feel was missing from the President’s proposal by instructing NASA to develop a clear plan for the future of human space exploration with set goals, timelines and a next-generation NASA vehicle,” Kosmas added.

“Our bill takes a critical first step toward closing the gap by extending Space Shuttle flights,” said Rep. Posey, a lead cosponsor of the bill.  “The Augustine Panel said this was the only way to close the gap from this end and we do that in this bill. I’m pleased to join Representative Kosmas and Senator Hutchinson in forging bipartisan, bicameral legislation to close the space gap and keep America first in space.”

In addition to Kosmas and Posey, original cosponsors of the bill include Representatives Corrine Brown (D-FL), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Jim Costa (D-CA), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Ron Klein (D-FL), Stephen LaTourette (R-OH), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), John Mica (R-FL), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Adam Putnam (R-FL), and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL).

The Human Space Flight Capability Assurance and Enhancement Act of 2010 would:

Allow for Shuttle extension to fully service and support ISS: Make shuttle retirement dependent on the availability of replacement capabilities for comparable size crew and cargo delivery, whether government-owned or commercial, or until it is conclusively demonstrated that the Space Shuttle cargo capabilities are not needed to ensure space station viability;

Maximize investment in ISS: Require International Space Station (ISS) operations and full utilization through at least 2020, and further establish the ISS National Laboratory operating mechanisms and procedures.  Instructs NASA to report to Congress on what resources and equipment are needed for ISS extension;

Develop New NASA-Led Vehicle: Provide for the acceleration of a government-owned human space flight capability to as close to 2015 as possible; Provide for the near-term evaluation of heavy-lift rocket vehicle design options, including Shuttle-derived and Constellation-derived options, to enable exploration beyond low-earth orbit and accelerate the start of vehicle design activity;

Encourage Commercial Development: Directs NASA to issue safety requirements for human rating commercial crew vehicles; expand support for Commercial Orbital Space Transportation (COTS) to support ISS -- both for cargo and for eventual crew launch capability;
 
Increase NASA Funding: Authorize top-level funding for all of NASA's mission activities, but would only address the human space flight policy issues. Provides increase over the President’s request of $1.3 billion for FY2011 and $2.1 billion for FY2012 for continuation of the Shuttle (at a rate of 2 missions a year) and additional ISS resources;

Establish Exploration Vision: Reaffirm long-term goal of moving beyond low-Earth orbit whether to the Moon, Mars or alternative destinations.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: MP99 on 03/11/2010 02:39 PM
There is absolutely nothing in the US now, or currently planned (including Falcon-9 and Falcon-9 Heavy), which even hopes to get launch costs down below that level.

You're obviously not familar with the full range of plans that are out there. Falcon 9 is not the only concept, and it's certainly not the cheapest.

Capsules and expendable rockets are not the only way to get into space. They're a stop-gap at best, a dead-end at worst.

Is this hush-hush, or should I have heard of this project?

How far along are they?

I think that he's referring (initially) to DreamChaser and (ultimately) to hypothetical fantasy RLVs.  They are all entirely pretty PowerPoint illustrations and, on occasion, full-scale carbon-fiber mock-ups.

Ten years away, minimum.

1) as I understand it, Dream Chaser morphed some time ago to requiring a separate launch vehicle (Atlas V, IIUC). Ross's comment was about launchers, as was Lonestar1's response.

2) Ross's comment was about existing "or currently planned". Powerpoint rockets really not relevant to that, which is why I asked how far along they were in development.

Martin
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: phantomdj on 03/11/2010 02:45 PM
Kosmas and Posey Introduce Bill to Minimize Human Spaceflight Gap

http://www.kosmas.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=269&Itemid=1

March 10, 2010

Bipartisan Legislation Would Help Maintain U.S. Leadership in Space


Notably missing from the list of cosponsors are the Democratic and Republican leadership of the House Science and Technology Committee, chairman Bart Gordon and ranking member Ralph Hall as well as and space subcommittee chair Gabrielle Giffords and ranking member Pete Olson.

As 51D Mascot has implied earlier, this bill may just be a placeholder for a larger appropriations bill that will include this and what Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison submitted on the Senate side.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/11/2010 02:47 PM
As 51D Mascot has implied earlier, this bill may just be a placeholder for a larger appropriations bill that will include this and what Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison submitted on the Senate side.
Possibly, but it would be an authorization bill.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/11/2010 03:34 PM
Why is it not very hard to do?  Give me specifics.  Define "more cost effective".  Seems fairly subjective to me. 

No, cost effectiveness is not "fairly subjective". It's objective and quantifiable. Someone "working in this business" should know that.

Sorry to be blunt, but since you elected to insult me and others, I don't feel inclined to give you a remedial class in engineering economics. As I used to tell students, I'm not here to do your homework.

It isn't hard to be more cost-effective than the Plan of Record because the cost of the PoR is so high and the results so low that almost any plan would score higher. Even simply continuing to fly the Shuttle.

Define game-changing technology. 

Define polite request, or did you miss the class on common courtesy as well?

If you don't know what game-changing technology is, I don't think I can tell you. I could give you the game-theoretic definition, but that would be like telling you the color blue is between 4100 and 4900 angstroms. If you can't see it for yourself, you'll never really know. It's "the vision thing."

Reading Clayton Christenson's book, "The Innovator's Dilemma," might be some help.

As for who decides which technologies are game-changing, the answer is Major General Charles Bolden, or those he delegates the responsibility to.

You are a program manager and it your job to go make "game-changing" technology.  Where do you start?  What are your objectives?  How long will it take before you have results?  What will your needed budget profile be for how many years in order to make it "game-changing"?  Once it is invented, how long will you require to validate it, transfer it to another entity so that it can be used in an operational state?   

That's not exactly my job, but you are very close. Beyond that -- I'm sorry, but there is no "cookbook approach." Every case is different. That's what makes it so challenging.

For the rest of that paragraph, where exactly do you get all of that?  There is no documentation except the budget, which is a proprosal from the Administration and uses only some of what you mention above as "possible examples".  It specifically states that.  There are no contracts for any of this and therefore you cannot say any of that will happen.

Just because you haven't seen a document doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just because something isn't written down doesn't mean it hasn't been decided, and just because something is in writing doesn't always mean it's true. I learn a lot more from talking to people than gets printed in the funny papers. I didn't say any of that was going to happen -- the old guard and ther special interests could screw it all up -- but that's the vision, and it's a vision worth fighting for.

I note you really pretty much stay away from all my questions.  I'm sorry if you thought I was being inpolite, I assure it was not intended that way.  Just direct. 

That said, cost effectiveness is subjective.  What one can afford does not mean everyone can.  In addition, I did not require you to explain to me engineering economics.  I can assure I understand the costs of this business, what it currently takes, what we could do to improve it, etc.  However, just having someone say it must be more "cost effective" with no qualifying definition does not cut it either. 

If "game-changing" technology is the definition of one political appointee, and you are ok with that, then we're even in bigger trouble.  In addition, I never said there was a cook book approach, however, these are the very first and basic questions that should be asked.  If you don't agree with that, fine, but anything less than those questions will lead to project disarry. 

So have you seen the document?  Can you say it exists?  If it doesn't, then there is no "vision"
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: jimgagnon on 03/11/2010 03:42 PM
I agree with some of your sentiments, but let's get the facts straight:

The original Iridium program bankrupted itself after reportedly spending in excess of $5B lofting satellites.  A group of private investors bought the remnants for the aforementioned $25M.  Good deal for them.

It would be rather interesting if after NASA and the ESA spending $100B+ on the ISS, a private investment group could eventually offer to take over operations for a few billion instead of having it be deorbited.

I'm a big fan of Burt Rutan's accomplishments with the SpaceShipOne program.  The rumored cost of the program was $20M.  Some NASA employees down the highway at DFRC supposedly said "Heh.  For $20M we would have delivered a feasibility study that said it wasn't possible!"  But the price tag for Virgin Galactic's commercial venture is $200k/ride.  And that's just for a sub-orbital flight. 

Call me a pessimist.  I believe it's going to years - decades - before private industry will loft a viable man-rated orbital spacecraft.  And certainly not without some - er - casualties along the way.  Men on Mars?  Probably not in my lifetime (I'm 36).  There's just no political will, and therefore no money, to accomplish that.  I hope to be proven wrong...

Oh, Iridium was undeniably messy, yet produced a working system that produces a $25M/year profit today. Such are the chaotic machinations of the free market. What distinguishes Iridium from its peers of the late '90s is that it was almost operational when they ran out of money. If you recall it took a phone call from Clinton to make the financiers back down from their threat to de-orbit the satellites.

I fully expect one or more of the commercial manned launch companies to go down the same path. That's why, as opposed to the indelicate OV, I have no problem with NASA feeding these companies some money to get them operational, and then backing off and letting the free market have its way. The viable ones will survive; the others will enter Chapter 11 and either get reorganized free of debt or will sell off their flying assets to other players. Regardless, the machines they built will still be flying, and flying with lower costs due to their chaotic financial path.

As far as your pessimistic prediction of decades before a private manned spacecraft orbits, you're simply wrong. Don't forget that Boeing is in this game, and they have a long track record of making this stuff happen. You'll see at least one company beat the Ares 1/Orion operational date of 2017; the financial incentive to be first with men to orbit is that great.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/11/2010 03:58 PM
One game changing technology isn't a technology, it's a price.  Getting launch costs down to $1800/kg, like I think Ross suggested above, would be that sort of change.  That might happen fairly gradually, over time if we had a broader field of private, well-regulated competition.

I think one of the unmentionable mental constructs of "game changing" is the sudden introduction of a new propulsion technology.  One can't count on this, nor project a plan around its possible eventuality, but one could take advantage of it were it to appear.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: neilh on 03/11/2010 04:37 PM
FYI, John Shannon (Space Shuttle Program Manager) made the following comment on Shuttle extension yesterday over at Jeff Foust's Space Politics blog:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/03/10/hanging-on-to-the-shuttle/
Quote
  John Shannon wrote @ March 10th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
I would like to address a few of the comments on this forum.

First of all, it sounds like most of you were unable to see the entire press conference on Tuesday. NASA has a “Program Overview” press conference with the Program Managers prior to each flight. Reporters take this opportunity to ask questions about the future direction of the Space Shuttle and ISS programs. This is followed by mission briefings by the Flight Directors, the EVA team, and finally the Crew. I also understand that the audio of the reporter’s questions was not being aired so you may have missed what was being asked. Bill Harwood has a more complete write-up on SpaceflightNow.com if you are interested in seeing a more complete account of the discussion. This should answer the “Why was Shannon talking to reporters” comments.

One of the first questions I was asked concerned the proposed Senate Bill from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and whether the proposed shuttle extension was feasible. I explained that we had kicked-off a vendor study to verify that our vendors could support the actions outlined in the bill. This study has shown that bringing vendors back would not be an issue. As you can imagine, at our current flight rate we maintain close contact with current and previous vendors to make sure that they are available in the event of any issues (for testing, manufacturing expertise, replacement parts, etc). So, from a vendor standpoint it is technically feasible to restart production for a shuttle extension.

However, even though the vendors would be available, I have also been on record as opposing extension for the following three reasons:
1.)    The Space Shuttle is “overqualified” for the task of simply taking logistics and crews to the ISS. The Space Shuttle has unique capabilities and I have said many times that “once the ISS is completed, and the last HST servicing mission is complete, the Space Shuttle has completed its mission”.
2.)   As I said to Dr. Sally Ride during our Augustine discussions – do not make me re-hire workers that have been laid-off in order to work for three years and build six tanks. The production layoffs have been brutal emotional events. Hiring workers back so that we could go through the whole cycle again in two years is completely wrong (In fact- I described it as “having to rip the band-aid off twice). However – if we could use that workforce/contracts/infrastructure in a follow-on Heavy-lift program it would be a reasonable investment. Without that follow-on program I would strongly counsel against extension.
3.)   Money. There is a base cost with flying the shuttle. I described it as $200 million a month, in reality that is for more than two flights a year and we could accomplish the flight rate in the Congressional bill for less than that, but if you only fly two flights per year the “per flight” cost is high. This fiscal year (2010) we are flying six flights for about $2.8B, or a little less than $500 million per flight. A pretty decent deal. However, we are upside down on fixed versus variable costs due to our unique infrastructure requirements (ever try to rent an arcjet?), so taking total budget divided by number of flights is very misleading. I have often said that the first flight of the shuttle in any given year is $3 billion, all of the rest are free. That is about as accurate as any other method.
I understand completely both sides of the discussion on whether to extend or not. On one hand it is important to reinvigorate the nation’s R&D base, it has been neglected for too long. On the other – we have a significant investment in infrastructure and corporate knowledge that will be very difficult to rebuild/recapture down the road. One of the most compelling arguments to keep ISS was that we had invested a lot to get our current capability, it would be a crime to walk away from it. There is a parallel there…
The Administration wants to reinvigorate the R&D base and encourage commercial development of Space – how do you argue against that? Congress wants to maintain our current leadership in Space and get the most out of our current investments – also a worthy point of view. I definitely feel caught in the middle…
As Bill said in his article: “Shannon did not say whether he personally favored an extension, telling reporters “we just provide the data, and we’ll let the nation go off and decide what they would like this team to go do.” This is really true. I feel it is very important to just provide the facts. We were asked by different members of Congress for data, and we provide them to the best of our ability. As you can tell, I have mixed emotions about the pros and cons of this discussion.
The other comment that struck me as interesting was the “took taxpayer money to start designing sidemount”. This is not true. We were asked during the transition team meetings to provide alternative crewed and uncrewed options that had been studied over the years – and there have been a lot of them. We did update the design, costs and schedules for a modified Shuttle-C to the transition team. When the Augustine committee asked for a similar study – we all debated who would go up and talk about the alternatives. I encourage you to go back and listen to those briefings- Mike Hawes stated that this was a study that we were asked for, and I started out the discussion by stating that I supported Constellation, however we were aware that it had not been funded properly and that we were pulling together previous studies to provide alternatives. (My personal opinion is that we should have done a “Shuttle-C” early in the program, because we could have tested new technologies on an uncrewed vehicle and hence made the entire system safer. We also could have debated the merits of manned vs. unmanned for each mission to make a conscious decision on whether a mission was worth the crew risk).
So, I will continue to provide requested data while our elected leadership debates options. There has been no discussion of quashing or disciplining anyone over providing this data. I think the NASA leadership has been very open and responsive to all of these requests, and I am proud to be part of the team.
The last point I would clarify is what we will do as a shuttle team if there is no extension. As I told the reporters Tuesday: “But it’s a money discussion,” he said. “If we don’t have the resources to do that (extend) and to continue to logistically supply the space station (with shuttle), then I understand that, it’s the path we’ve been on and we’ll take this team and try our hardest to seed them out to either the commercial sector or into whatever NASA is going to do next to bring those lessons learned … to try and make the next program as successful as possible.”

Quote
John Shannon wrote @ March 11th, 2010 at 12:14 am
What was reported on this blog was the following:
‘Could we extend the shuttle?’” Garver said in response to a question on the subject. “I was told by the entire shuttle NASA folks that, in fact, that time had come and gone. It was not an issue of money at that point, it was an issue of second-tier suppliers, there would be at least a two-year gap between our last flight and the next one, et cetera.” That situation, she said, was a result a previous policies: “We inherited what we inherited.”
I believe if you read this again, Lori was stating that you could not have an uninterrupted extension of the shuttle, which is exactly right.To bring people back on contract, to get the suppliers spooled up will result in a two year delay in getting new hardware to the launch pad. Throwing lots of money at it would not accelerate the hardware delivery. I don’t see the contradiction you see.
When I was asked if we could support the proposal from Sen. Hutchison, i addressed that there were no technical reasons we could not, however there is no money in the budget for it and we would have a two year gap unless we spread out the flights. Where is the contradiction?

regarding your last paragraph – I would say that there is disagreement in the space community on those goals and aspirations and that is why all of this data is being requested. I am just trying to stick to the facts…

Also, from David Radzanowski, deputy associate administrator for program intergration in the Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD):
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/03/11/one-other-note-about-shuttle-extension/
Quote
“SOMD believes that if the nation told us to extend the space shuttle, we could do it technically,” he said. “But the reality is that we can do anything if we’re given enough money and enough workforce.” He said that “enough money” would be “well over $2.5 billion a year” to keep flying the shuttle. “That additional money would probably have to come from their directorates,” he said, referring to his fellow panelists. “It’s highly unlikely in the budget environment that we’re in that we’re going to get additional dollars.”

... “If we’re directed to do so, and if the money actaully shows up, and if we bring the workforce and the suppliers onboard that we need to move forward, there would still be a two- to three-year gap between the last flight and the new additional flights,” he concluded. “That’s just the way it is, folks, that’s the way it is because it takes us that long to build an external tank.”
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: psloss on 03/11/2010 05:01 PM
FYI, John Shannon (Space Shuttle Program Manager) made the following comment on Shuttle extension yesterday over at Jeff Foust's Space Politics blog:
Beat ya: :P
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg558876#msg558876
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 03/11/2010 05:04 PM
Am I correct in assuming that the 2.4-2.5 billion dollar figure being given out includes all the infrastructure costs at KSC and JSC?

Is it also correct that The Human Spaceflight Capability Assurance and Protection Act funds the infrastructure costs separately, in the same manner that the proposed 2011 budget does?

TIA
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/11/2010 05:18 PM
Mr. Shannon's Band-Aid analogy fails.  Many injuries, especially the larger ones, require the first band-aid to be ripped off, the wound cleaned, and a second one to be applied, only to be ripped off in it's turn.

It would be rough indeed, to take a three year job, but if you knew in advance that the job was likely to have only a three year duration, you could begin to plan for that eventuality.  It is not an unheard of situation, and could be well used regarding the tank issue.

I like the analogy of the first shuttle costing $3B and you get the rest for free.  Mr. Shannon tries to spin this into an argument for non-extension, and fails again.

Not only that, but his "overqualified" example also fails.  It's the only American vehicle that does what it does.  Therefore we should use it until we have a proven vehicle that can replace all of it's functions, for less money.  Until then, it's the only "qualified" vehicle, and as such, and as long as it is used, it can't be "over" qualified.

Clearly, the shuttle should be extended.  It is affordable and proven.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Pheogh on 03/11/2010 05:22 PM
Now if we could only hear from Mike Suffredini about ISS utilization and resupply. I seem to remember that that the last time Shuttle's went to a hard stop the station had to go to 2 crew. I find it extremely hard to believe with simply the addition of HTV and ATV with a promise of Falcon 9 that we can maintain 6 crew and science.

For 10 more years?
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/11/2010 05:29 PM
Mr. Shannon's Band-Aid analogy fails.  Many injuries, especially the larger ones, require the first band-aid to be ripped off, the wound cleaned, and a second one to be applied, only to be ripped off in it's turn.

It would be rough indeed, to take a three year job, but if you knew in advance that the job was likely to have only a three year duration, you could begin to plan for that eventuality.  It is not an unheard of situation, and could be well used regarding the tank issue.

I like the analogy of the first shuttle costing $3B and you get the rest for free.  Mr. Shannon tries to spin this into an argument for non-extension, and fails again.

Not only that, but his "overqualified" example also fails.  It's the only American vehicle that does what it does.  Therefore we should use it until we have a proven vehicle that can replace all of it's functions, for less money.  Until then, it's the only "qualified" vehicle, and as such, and as long as it is used, it can't be "over" qualified.

Clearly, the shuttle should be extended.  It is affordable and proven.

Mr. Shannon has to be careful what he says.  Believe me though when I say he is not anti-extension and there is much more going on than meets the eye.
Title: Re: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV
Post by: Namechange User on 03/11/2010 05:32 PM
Now if we could only hear from Mike Suffredini about ISS utilization and resupply. I seem to remember that that the last time Shuttle's went to a hard stop the station had to go to 2 crew. I find it extremely hard to believe with simply the addition of HTV and ATV with a promise of Falcon 9 that we can maintain 6 crew and science.
<