Author Topic: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2  (Read 96849 times)

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15669
  • Liked: 32
Thanks for posting that -- the tweet is gone now and I didn't see it when I checked a few hours earlier...out of curiosity when did you screen shot that?


I did a google search a few minutes before posting the screenshot,  term search :
twitter alan ladwig bite be
(I knew it was about Alan Ladwig because the name came up in the congressman's question.)
The google cache hold the nugget, and even now there are some, ex:
http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache:emhE-FJarQ4J:topsy.com/s%3Ftype%3Dtweet%26q%3D%2523isu10+twitter+alan+ladwig+bite+me&cd=10&hl=ro&ct=clnk

The ISU event / "Bite me !" apparently happend on Feb. 16.



Thanks for the info.

Offline wholmeswa

  • Member
  • Posts: 61
  • Liked: 2
  • Wayne Holmes
  • Seattle, WA
Also, for our older members, are the current events comparable with anything in the past....I'm thinking Apollo to Shuttle, as much as I know that must have been very different?

Chris: I was in High School as Apollo wound down. I did kind of look forward to ASTP and Skylab, but was more interested in the Space Shuttle program. When the delays hit Shuttle development I lost interest until Columbia actually was flown to KSC that first time. (I remember the news stories about all the tiles falling off.)

So from the perspective of an "interested observer" living through both times, the Apollo to Shuttle gap didn't seem as big of a deal as the current Shuttle to <a mission/program/system to be named latter> gap.

I don't have a copy handy, but I believe it was Gene Krantz who had a few words on his perception of the Apollo/Shuttle gap in his autobiography. Anyone know if Krantz has offered his opinion on the current situation? It would be interesting to hear an management/engineering "insider" who experienced both offer their thoughts.

Wayne

Offline Mark S

  • Waiting for warp drive, hyperdrive, ludicrous speed, whatever it takes.
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1976
  • Liked: 61
  • Dallas, TX
Anyone know if Krantz has offered his opinion on the current situation? It would be interesting to hear an management/engineering "insider" who experienced both offer their thoughts.

Wayne

I seem to recall that Krantz was critical of the AC and was opposed to any change to the POR.  But I haven't heard anything from him about the Obama anti-plan.

Offline TexasRED

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Liked: 3
  • Houston
Has a story on an alternate congressional plan (with an authentic looking bill) and support for Ares I-X part II, Shuttle to 2015, Orion, 2x commercial, and SDLV (25kt to GEO????).  How they pay for all this in the budget and still accomplish something (BEO) is beyond me, but I think jobs is their goal.
Wow, no kidding about how they pay for all of it.  It does give them more flexibility, but then the Congressional "decision" would fall to appropriations, and they could choose to fund a subset of those projects.


Certainly this proposed Bill gives lots of options and I would applaud the Congress for making their own proposals.   

At minimum Obama and company needs to be slapped and beaten down politically for the way they bungled the communications of the NASA budget request.  One of the Senators or Congress people in the hearings was very upset about the because it was all hush hush, no one new anything, and yet apparently Administration officials were leaking info to the Media the night before.  The politicians read about it in the morning paper and were shocked.

Another one mentioned that Flexible path as described by the Augustine report assumed the continuation of Constellation.  I have to verify that myself though.

And Bolden basically said in yesterday's hearing that they chose the Flexible Path, however the Congressman said Augustine's Flexible Path assumed Constellation would go forward.  Again I have to verify what's in the actual report.
Augustine had multiple Flexible Paths, one with Constellation, one with Shuttle Extention + SDHLV, one with EELV-only.

IIRC, they all had CCDev for LEO\ISS, and all had Orion for BEO. Some had a variant of Ares in there.  I don't think any of them were Ares I\Orion combo.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4839
  • Liked: 598
  • Louisville, CO
If you want to go BEO, you need HLVs. It's either that or fuel depots, but since using fuel depots has never been done, they'll probably be conservative and go for HLVs. By they I mean the senators pushing this compromise bill.

Even this isn't correct.  There are exploration missions you can do in cislunar space (including the lunar surface) that don't require depots or HLVs.  Depots make it possible to do robust, non-HLV missions throughout cislunar space and most of the way to Mars.  HLVs *might* be needed for manned mars surface missions, and for missions beyond Mars, but that's a bit off.

~Jon

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Liked: 1
If you want to go BEO, you need HLVs. It's either that or fuel depots, but since using fuel depots has never been done, they'll probably be conservative and go for HLVs. By they I mean the senators pushing this compromise bill.

Even this isn't correct.  There are exploration missions you can do in cislunar space (including the lunar surface) that don't require depots or HLVs.  Depots make it possible to do robust, non-HLV missions throughout cislunar space and most of the way to Mars.  HLVs *might* be needed for manned mars surface missions, and for missions beyond Mars, but that's a bit off.

~Jon

Thanks and if I understand your post correctly, even with fuel depots there might be a need for an HLV for a Mars human mission?
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7351
  • Liked: 47
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
Thanks and if I understand your post correctly, even with fuel depots there might be a need for an HLV for a Mars human mission?

There would be no need, but there might be a desire, for instance if large heat shields turn out to be practical. The mere desire could arise for other reasons too.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 03:52 PM by mmeijeri »
May Decatur do to SLS what Decatur did to the USS Philadelphia.

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5690
  • Liked: 151
Thanks and if I understand your post correctly, even with fuel depots there might be a need for an HLV for a Mars human mission?

In my opinion, it's not so much a need as an economic benefit.  We've proven that we can build a gigantic space craft in LEO using 25T launches or less with ISS, but we've also proven that it's horribly expensive and time consuming to do so.  *If* we need a large space craft to take people beyond Earth orbit and have them to significant work once they're there (and I think we do), then it's probably cheaper and more efficient to build that vehicle with a dozen or so HLV launches than with a hundred or so EELV heavy or several hundred EELV launches.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 03:55 PM by Lee Jay »

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1584
  • Liked: 27
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

1. No, absent a miracle STS ends this year or early next year (STS-135).

2. No, Cx is definitely ending, the PoR has practically no supporters any more from either side as it is over budget and off schedule.

3. The new plan faces a lot of criticism for the sake of criticism. It's not like anyone provides a viable alternative. The only really viable changes I have heard of was the suggestion by Nelson to shift some line-item funds to HLV development.

4. That tells me, if anything, the new budget will be modified. But one thing is clear, Ares I is dead, it doesn't have support. Orion is dead too, it's just way to expensive. And Exploration, as odd as this sounds, was just made up of Ares I / Orion and a few advanced capabilies programs noone is talking about anyway (Human research program etc.).

5. Senators and House Representatives won't tell NASA to build a DIRECT style rocket. They haven't even asked about the possibility of that, as they are non-experts and NASA could ask them to back up their claim that this would work, as they have their own studies that show it won't work within the budget.


I believe you might be surprised over the next week or so on some of those points...but one never knows, hehe.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7351
  • Liked: 47
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
We've proven that we can build a gigantic space craft in LEO using 25T launches or less with ISS, but we've also proven that it's horribly expensive and time consuming to do so.

All we've proved is that the way we did it was expensive and time consuming. The Shuttle was part of the problem, if for no other reason than the fact that it was grounded for a while. Also, inflatables may prove to work very well and have superior radiation and MMOD shielding properties too, but it's not a proven fact. It it still possible that HLVs will turn out to be super-useful for building large structures but that too is not yet a proven fact.
May Decatur do to SLS what Decatur did to the USS Philadelphia.

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Liked: 1
It it still possible that HLVs will turn out to be super-useful for building large structures but that too is not yet a proven fact.

Well the compromise bill pushes for HLV development and if it passes we might get one, whether it's needed or not.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/senator-hutchinsons-wish-list.html

    Quote:
Alternative heavy lift vehicles able to launch 25,000kg (55,000lb) into LEO and 6,800kg into geosynchronous orbit must also form part of this 90-day review. The bill says of this heavy lift evaluation-:

          - the administrator is "directed" to select a heavy lift launch vehicle design concept and to "initiate detailed design activities" within six months after the act's enactment
          - the heavy lift vehicles can be solely government or developed in partnership with commercial organisations
          - an "evolutionary" approach that enables "early" human spaceflight must be considered
          - comparative development and projected operational costs must be supplied
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 04:16 PM by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Roo

  • Member
  • Posts: 84
  • Liked: 0
During yesterday's hearing, it was mentioned by Chairman Gordon that commercial costs have jumped 62% already (from 500m to 800m). It was then discovered that the information used by NASA to move forward with commercial came from industrial surveys by the commercial sector itself as opposed to in house surveys by NASA.

Isn't this a genuine worry already?

Roo.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 04:14 PM by Roo »

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7351
  • Liked: 47
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
Well the compromise bill pushes for HLV development and if it passes we might get one, whether it's needed or not.

That's what I'm worried about, but that's because I believe a "large" HLV would be harmful in the near term. And if we want early spaceflight beyond LEO we need a spacecraft, not a launch vehicle. The remarks by the commission members indicate that their real desire is at least to preserve the shuttle workforce for a while and perhaps to keep NASA in the launch business.
May Decatur do to SLS what Decatur did to the USS Philadelphia.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1584
  • Liked: 27
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
Flight International

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/25/338812/congress-to-dump-obama-nasa-plan.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/senator-hutchinsons-wish-list.html

Has a story on an alternate congressional plan (with an authentic looking bill) and support for Ares I-X part II, Shuttle to 2015, Orion, 2x commercial, and SDLV (25kt to GEO????).  How they pay for all this in the budget and still accomplish something (BEO) is beyond me, but I think jobs is their goal.

The administrator shall take steps to include options for development by an industry consortium...using existing space shuttle propulsion technologies and related existing infrastructure for defining a cost effective means of obtaining the early development of a crew launch capability to launch a commercially developed multiple-application crew transportation module as well as current payload capabilities approximating those of the space shuttle orbiter. Such development should include evaluation of a variant of the Orion crew exploration vehicle...and an examination of the potential for evolution of such a system to a heavy lift variant using technology developed under a Heavy Lift Vehicle and Propulsion Research and Development Program





Just a note or two on the "leaked" draft bill:

a) Note that the heading is "Staff Working Draft", so it is not necessarily the current version; in fact, it is dated February 9th, and the most recent draft is dated February 22nd.

b) Changes to such a working draft can--and likely will--be made right up until very shortly before it is introduced, so it should not be considered as a finished product, however closely it may be to what becomes the final version.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Tags: