Author Topic: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately  (Read 285010 times)

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Bill Nelson speaks . . .

http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/billnelson/billnelson100714.mp3

Listen to the mp3 link from demradio at senate.gov

Money quote:

Quote
"The White House will announce their support of this bill tomorrow"
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline TexasRED

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Houston
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9
Bill Nelson speaks . . .

http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/billnelson/billnelson100714.mp3

Listen to the mp3 link from demradio at senate.gov

Money quote:

Quote
"The White House will announce their support of this bill tomorrow"

Wow thanks for posting.

Also explicitly mentions a Delta for crew.  Wonder what the vehicle on board will be.
« Last Edit: 07/15/2010 04:22 AM by TexasRED »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3945
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 378
  • Likes Given: 154
Bill Nelson speaks . . .

http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/billnelson/billnelson100714.mp3

Listen to the mp3 link from demradio at senate.gov

Money quote:

Quote
"The White House will announce their support of this bill tomorrow"


Ok if that happens I will redact everything I have said. But my doing that would also strictly depend on the content of this bill


Considering how hard they fought for fy 2011, I find it hard to believe that Obama would simply PUBLICLY announce support for this, rather than just quietly rubber stamp or veto later on unless there is something in the bill that we don't know about yet (last minute?)

To do so would be pretty embaressing for the WH because it would mean admitting a massive, very incompetent mistake on a large government program..........

But I will wait and see. Get out the popcorn this is going to be a heck of a finale 8)
« Last Edit: 07/15/2010 04:24 AM by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 73
"......chanCe of Obama supporting it......."Politcally naive as usual. Obama is not interested. He wants NASA ethier A. Gone or B. Made into a slush fund for other things lik climate change.
It has always been that way, and I expect he may rubber stamp this cause he simply doesn't care that much. But he could also veto it knowing that doing so would probably lead to the inviability of SDHLV and a workforce collapse.......
He isn't stupid or misinformed, he is very smart and does get some good info. But he has A. bad advisors around and B. some very "polarized" opinions on how the world works.
If he cares enough that he really wants that funding for something else he will veto, otherwise he will stamp (quietly ofc).

Boxer is offering an amendment, mark my words, this bill has been pre approved by the executive.  I have worked in politics so trust me I am not politically naive.  When you see 1st rung Senators proposing amendments this early, this bill has made the rounds behind closed doors.  This bill is likely headed in one fashion or the other to the executives desk. 

One does not change direction for NASA without fan fair.  Trust me, the bill as written by Nelson, with a few tweeks, is a bill all Senators and the Executive can walk away from with things to brag about.  It's that way by design.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12811
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3793
  • Likes Given: 741
Bill Nelson speaks . . .

http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/billnelson/billnelson100714.mp3

Listen to the mp3 link from demradio at senate.gov

Money quote:

Quote
"The White House will announce their support of this bill tomorrow"

Extra Shuttle, accelerated Heavy Lift, Commercial Crew, and Research & Development mentioned, but not one word about Orion in this clip, which is interesting.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3945
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 378
  • Likes Given: 154
"......chanCe of Obama supporting it......."Politcally naive as usual. Obama is not interested. He wants NASA ethier A. Gone or B. Made into a slush fund for other things lik climate change.
It has always been that way, and I expect he may rubber stamp this cause he simply doesn't care that much. But he could also veto it knowing that doing so would probably lead to the inviability of SDHLV and a workforce collapse.......
He isn't stupid or misinformed, he is very smart and does get some good info. But he has A. bad advisors around and B. some very "polarized" opinions on how the world works.
If he cares enough that he really wants that funding for something else he will veto, otherwise he will stamp (quietly ofc).

Boxer is offering an amendment, mark my words, this bill has been pre approved by the executive.  I have worked in politics so trust me I am not politically naive.  When you see 1st rung Senators proposing amendments this early, this bill has made the rounds behind closed doors.  This bill is likely headed in one fashion or the other to the executives desk. 

One does not change direction for NASA without fan fair.  Trust me, the bill as written by Nelson, with a few tweeks, is a bill all Senators and the Executive can walk away from with things to brag about.  It's that way by design.

Don't forget Nelson's comments prior to FY 2011 announcment led us to believe that there would be an SDHLV in that announcement. But there wasn't, it was radically different from the plan he thought would be announced.

Tread carefully things are changing minute by minute it seems.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3945
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 378
  • Likes Given: 154
Bill Nelson speaks . . .

http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/billnelson/billnelson100714.mp3

Listen to the mp3 link from demradio at senate.gov

Money quote:

Quote
"The White House will announce their support of this bill tomorrow"

Extra Shuttle, accelerated Heavy Lift, Commercial Crew, and Research & Development mentioned, but not one word about Orion in this clip, which is interesting.

 - Ed Kyle
I know right? Its odd. Perhaps: Future BEO: Crew launch by EELV or other commercial provider (like spacex) to LEO. Stack components launched by SDHLV?

3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8459
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 338
  • Likes Given: 146

To do so would be pretty embaressing for the WH because it would mean admitting a massive, very incompetent mistake on a large government program..........

Not necessary.  Constellation has been cancelled, the rest of the budget was negotiable.   Although Obama may wish to rename the the projects.

Orion could be renamed something North American such as Hapj.
« Last Edit: 07/15/2010 04:41 AM by A_M_Swallow »

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1915
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 0
I'm personally wondering if they're going to announce an attempt at increasing the top-line for NASA, perhaps to the level the Augustine Committee proposed. An increased top-line could potentially accommodate both the HLV folks and the White House. The White House wouldn't want the political cost of proposing an even larger budget increase for NASA in the current economy, but the members of the Commerce committee might try it. Of course, it'd then be interesting to see what would happen when it reached the Appropriations committee...

Senator Nelson, & Boxer both are close with the President, I seriously doubt Nelson would put his neck out, and Boxer would bother to amend if there wasn't some change of Obama supporting it.  They don't legislate in a vacuum.

If Senator Boxer and Warner's amendments get attached, everyone will walk away with a piece of the Flat little 20B pie.  Work force intact, Commercial given it's leg up for the year, SDHLV fast tracked, flexible path implemented, and ATK get's it's pound of flesh.

Think of it this way this bill finally kills the unkillable Ares 1 :)

"......chanCe of Obama supporting it......."

Politcally naive as usual. Obama is not interested. He wants NASA ethier A. Gone or B. Made into a slush fund for other things lik climate change.

It has always been that way, and I expect he may rubber stamp this cause he simply doesn't care that much. But he could also veto it knowing that doing so would probably lead to the inviability of SDHLV and a workforce collapse.......


He isn't stupid or misinformed, he is very smart and does get some good info. But he has A. bad advisors around and B. some very "polarized" opinions on how the world works.


If he cares enough that he really wants that funding for something else he will veto, otherwise he will stamp (quietly ofc).

No, I take fy2011 as an attempt to right size NASA. Letís face it the shuttle has the biggest work force of any rocket and keeping all these people employed is going to eat the budget. If spaceflight is advancing it should take fewer people to do the same amount of work. It is one of those sad facts in life. Heck I once worked at a dairy that produced ten times more than it did in the 70ies, yet employed less than half as many people.

 I am no fan of shuttle derived. I might have been before cxp, but as the quote goes the shuttleís parts are not Lego pieces and the flight rates they were talking about (1-2 a year) during cxp did not justify keeping it. I think shuttle Cís time has come and gone.

I think NASA is at a critical fork in the road. It can keeping doing things the same way it has been and hope for a budget increase(Which becomes less and less likely as the boomers start to drain social security). It can refocus itself for the 21st century by bring in new technologies and new approaches to the problem of space flight. If it chooses ye old HLV topped with disposable capsule, habitat, and lander ala Apollo it is going to eat its budget and become less and less relevant.
If it chooses not to use commercial in LEO it will never have the funds or political support for BEO.

 If it employs new technology such as propellant depots, solar electric tugs and closed loop life support it can build Infrastructure in orbit which over time will reduce the cost of BEO flight.  For instance if you tug you hab back into earth orbit after a NEO mission then you only need to resupply it (a role for commercial). If you dump it after each mission because using chemical rockets without a depot you canít afford the mass to bring it back donít be surprised if one day the budget is lowered to the point where you canít afford to buy a new hab. By the way that was how Apollo was ended. Congress refused to purchase a second round of upgraded Saturn Vís in 1968, leaving NASA as a space program that was running out of rockets before the 1st moon landing had taken place.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9621
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 464
Senator Nelson Previews 2010 NASA Reauthorization Bill

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2010/074.html

There are a couple of things to keep in mind here:

1) Authorization bills don't fund anything, so often, many goodies get stuck in authorization bill that don't pass the appropriations process.

2) Authorization bills are not necessary for funding, so if Obama truly doesn't support the Nelson document, its DOA, since Harry Reid can kill it.

What I would like to know is the relationship between the Nelson bill and the Hutchison bill thrown out here a few months ago.

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Tread carefully things are changing minute by minute it seems.

100% agreed. However, that sure sounds like Bill Nelson's voice on that mp3 clip.

EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2714
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Wrong.  Where do you come up with this stuff?  Your claims are either unsubstantiated or OBE.

Use of EELV for manned mission predates Constellation, they were to be used for OSP.
Manrating the EELV's is not a big deal, schedule or cost wise. It can be quickly, before any NASA development vehicle flies.

Also, your comment about Orion to Mars shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
You are correct Jim. I am required to agree with everything you have to say.

Arguing the facts of EELV with Jim is like arguing the facts of STS with OV-106, or the facts of suborital with Jon Goff.  Your welcome to do it, but you will look like a fool in the process.


That is the truth! I've been reading posts here for over 4 years...

Cheers!
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7126
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 646
  • Likes Given: 759
Extra Shuttle, accelerated Heavy Lift, Commercial Crew, and Research & Development mentioned, but not one word about Orion in this clip, which is interesting.

The draft bill only mentioned a 'Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle' and didn't mention Orion by name.  It is possible that, after discussions with Lockheed about the practicality of restoring capabilities, Orion is being canned with Ares-I in favour of a more capable vehicle that is optimised for BEO.  We will have to see.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

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

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
Bill Nelson speaks . . .

http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/billnelson/billnelson100714.mp3

Listen to the mp3 link from demradio at senate.gov

Money quote:

Quote
"The White House will announce their support of this bill tomorrow"

Wow thanks for posting.

Also explicitly mentions a Delta for crew.  Wonder what the vehicle on board will be.

Wow, verrry interesting. If it's the Nelson/Hutchison bill plus the commercial & tech amendments, I could definitely see myself supporting it, even if some parts of it are... suboptimal.

Delta was just listed as an example of potential crew launchers, although it's also coincidentally the second-hardest to human-rate (after Taurus).  I'm personally guessing he may have just mentioned it due to the mental association many already have between Boeing and commercial air transport.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 38
Senator Nelson Previews 2010 NASA Reauthorization Bill

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2010/074.html


What I would like to know is the relationship between the Nelson bill and the Hutchison bill thrown out here a few months ago.


Very good question...take a look at them side-by-side with respect to the human spaceflight portions...remember, the Hutchison bill (S. 3068) was focused on just the Human Spaceflight portions of NASA Authorization; this is a full authorization bill, so includes all of NASA, from a policy perspective. At the time she introduced her bill, it was noted that it could reflect a potential consensus direction that could form the core of a full NASA authorization bill.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline moose103

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
WOW that's it then.  The reports of a fatigued DNC and President are true.  They're giving up battles the closer we get to big votes.  They are very scared about losing seats.

Hope all the "budget to nowhere" naysayers are happy with the new mission objective.  What do they plan on flying on this rocket again?  Orion?  To where?  Apollo again?  I recognize that.  It was called Constellation in the early 21st century. 

We've lost new technology, deep space missions, and maximum funding to close the gap, all in favor of... how did Nelson put it?  "The much more expensive heavy lift rocket"

The President trades the future for votes.  See you in 5 years when this latest toy rocket is canceled.

Offline Spacetime

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
    • Nasaengineer.com
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Here is a bit more from the Nelson audio clip-

ďWe expect to pass this bill tomorrowÖ The White House will announce their support for our bill tomorrow, that is extremely important to us. Thatís going to enable us to keep moving the ball forward in being able to have NASA continue a vigorous path of human exploration of the cosmos.Ē

Heavy duty.

It's interesting that the letter supporting the President's plan from former astronauts addressed the human-rated requirements thing that the senate Bill mentions. I didn't see much discussion on it.. But...



Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4343
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1133
  • Likes Given: 2155
WOW that's it then.  The reports of a fatigued DNC and President are true.  They're giving up battles the closer we get to big votes.  They are very scared about losing seats.

Hope all the "budget to nowhere" naysayers are happy with the new mission objective.  What do they plan on flying on this rocket again?  Orion?  To where?  Apollo again?  I recognize that.  It was called Constellation in the early 21st century. 

We've lost new technology, deep space missions, and maximum funding to close the gap, all in favor of... how did Nelson put it?  "The much more expensive heavy lift rocket"

The President trades the future for votes.  See you in 5 years when this latest toy rocket is canceled.

Its possible, sure. But much new technology will still happen -- Propellant Depots, Lagrange Points and other mission enablers are at least being finally, seriously looked at, NOT the uneeded Ares 1 and fantasy, unaffordable Ares V. A more sensible Shuttle-Derived launcher might arise, costing a fraction of the $70 billion+plus Ares Boondoggle. Then again, we've been down a similar road before during the Pre-ESAS time period, so Moose's dire predictions may yet come true.

But look; I was critical of the so-called 'Obama Plan' to Nowhere (which it was) too. Big talk of grandiose technology developments, with no real timetable, destinations or REAL money. With no concrete plans -- which a bloated Constellation at least  DID have -- I repeat with no concrete plans, I say it is equally possible that all the Obama plan stuff would suffer the 'Death Of A Thousand Cuts' because nobody in the near future will be able to tell the Senate and Congress what all the billions with a 'B' are FOR.

The Nelson and Hutchinson, etc  compromise -- as long as it keeps COMMERICAL ISS Cargo & Crew alive -- strikes me as a do-able compromise that should accomplish - *SUSTAINABLY* many of the Constellation AND ObamaSpace objectives. Will it please everyone? Heck no, especially the sourpusses and Negative Ninny Naysayers who are NEVER happy with anything. But it should please a lot of people, even if the HLV is "ONLY" the Side-Mount: HALF the capability of Saturn V for only a fraction of its development costs. Even if Inline HLV is not chosen, Ross, Chuck and company still win: because Direct may have played an important part in forcing NASA to more sensibly look at the Launcher issue. Theirs would not be a Pyrrhic victory, but an Historical one, a little like that of John Houbolt.

I for one would have preferred they just keep the E.T. 8.4 meter tooling and go for Hydrocarbon Boosters instead of Solids. But I'm not gonna moan or whinge, especially since I'm not a U.S. Taxpayer so my opinion is merely academic. We need to start pulling together to support the future: we can all play a part to build a Mission out of this thing, or a series of Missions. There's been too much division in the Space Blogosphere over this issue already, to the point where it actually had an effect. We've gotta get behind this, but not blindly like Robots or Apologists. Demand the innovation that Constellation scarcely had! It is possible to have the whole Solar System for less than 1% percent of the Discretionary Federal Budget, even in times of hardship.

Low Earth Orbit is a Prison: It's way past time for a Jailbreak!!

Come on guys; lets Go...  8)
« Last Edit: 07/29/2010 07:12 AM by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3

No, I take fy2011 as an attempt to right size NASA. Letís face it the shuttle has the biggest work force of any rocket and keeping all these people employed is going to eat the budget. If spaceflight is advancing it should take fewer people to do the same amount of work. It is one of those sad facts in life. Heck I once worked at a dairy that produced ten times more than it did in the 70ies, yet employed less than half as many people.

 I am no fan of shuttle derived. I might have been before cxp, but as the quote goes the shuttleís parts are not Lego pieces and the flight rates they were talking about (1-2 a year) during cxp did not justify keeping it. I think shuttle Cís time has come and gone.

I think NASA is at a critical fork in the road. It can keeping doing things the same way it has been and hope for a budget increase(Which becomes less and less likely as the boomers start to drain social security). It can refocus itself for the 21st century by bring in new technologies and new approaches to the problem of space flight. If it chooses ye old HLV topped with disposable capsule, habitat, and lander ala Apollo it is going to eat its budget and become less and less relevant.
If it chooses not to use commercial in LEO it will never have the funds or political support for BEO.

 If it employs new technology such as propellant depots, solar electric tugs and closed loop life support it can build Infrastructure in orbit which over time will reduce the cost of BEO flight.  For instance if you tug you hab back into earth orbit after a NEO mission then you only need to resupply it (a role for commercial). If you dump it after each mission because using chemical rockets without a depot you canít afford the mass to bring it back donít be surprised if one day the budget is lowered to the point where you canít afford to buy a new hab. By the way that was how Apollo was ended. Congress refused to purchase a second round of upgraded Saturn Vís in 1968, leaving NASA as a space program that was running out of rockets before the 1st moon landing had taken place.


You are not being fair and comparing apples to apples. The manpower involved in Shuttle is due to maintaining 30 year old Orbiter RLVs mission after mission and not due to the Shuttle rocket stack itself. When a commercial company develops a 25mT RLV and has much lower costs over decades then you may have a point. Hopefully Orion can now become reusable and land landing again reducing costs going forward so Apollo won't be a exact comparison either. The intensive work done by the DIRECT people over years now has shown that a NASA SD-HLV can match any ULA growth option for costs per Kg over any decent flightrate that will produce meaningful exploration so a bad option is not being chosen here just an alternative one which can seamlessly take over Shuttle in terms of facilities, personnel and existing hardware and be ready earlier than alternatives.

It is also obvious that there is now a collective will among the politicians and the people to go back to BEO for good and funding should not be a problem going forward. People took Apollo for granted at the time and only now do they realize what a great achievement it was at the time so much so that many people so easily think it was a hoax and mirage because nobody else has tried to reach that very hard mountain again. It showed that ultimately the Moon and other celestial objects were not unreachable and could be eventually colonized. The US is richer now than then, it can afford to consistently do BEO again and still spend less than 1% of the budget. There will be no turning back now, if the most naturally Space averse President can sign this budget then the support for continued VSE really is unstoppable going forward.

The final thing is that MSFC high level management have to learn the the lessons of Cx and stop thinking of ways to make things more esoteric, complex and expensive than they need to be. A lot of the stakeholders were very unimpressed with their ultimately academic efforts to produce what should have been the cheapest, quickest and most effective way to get back to the Moon but what turned out to be the most expensive pointless new rocket building exercise known to man. So they get one more chance, they shouldn't mess it up and produce quick visible cost-effective results this time rather than the best theoretical performance over the next 50 years which in reality never gets funded for the last 45 ! The enemy of the good is the perfect ! ;)
« Last Edit: 07/15/2010 11:09 AM by marsavian »

Offline daj24

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 8
Direct Launch system on the front page of MSNBC.com along with the Nelson/Obama/etc. NASA budget items.
"You'll be a witness to that game of chance in the sky. You know we've got to win" D. Fagen

Tags: