Author Topic: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV  (Read 157158 times)

Online Chris Bergin

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

Offline butters

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1672
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 71
Seems like all launch vehicles win and all payloads lose.  We'll have plenty of ways to send nothing to nowhere.

Offline Harold KSC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Liked: 3456
  • Likes Given: 27
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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
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.

« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 01:30 AM by yg1968 »

Online Chris Bergin

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.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16935
  • Liked: 1012
  • Likes Given: 447
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.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 01:39 AM by psloss »

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17773
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 441
  • Likes Given: 3336
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).
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
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?

EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16935
  • Liked: 1012
  • Likes Given: 447
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 01:52 AM by psloss »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16935
  • Liked: 1012
  • Likes Given: 447
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.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 01:54 AM by psloss »

Offline David AF

  • F-22 Raptor Instructor / Fighter Pilot
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 826
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Excellent article.
F-22 Raptor instructor

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 37
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."
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline mr_magoo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 19
A bill to make the Augustine Commission cringe. Build everything to make everyone feel good about themselves.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
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.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 02:10 AM by neilh »
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Online Chris Bergin

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.

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17773
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 441
  • Likes Given: 3336
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.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline Tim S

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
  • MSFC
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 10
I like the timescale for HLV. The Bolden plan for HLV is a disgrace.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
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.

Offline TexasRED

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 433
  • Houston
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9
Excellent article.  NSF continues to beat the rest by providing informative articles that contain no injected opinionated nonsense.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
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.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2010 02:49 AM by yg1968 »

Tags: