FY2011 Senate and House (Compromise) Thread (2) - Sept. 23 onwards

[cro-magnon gramps]

* extend or modify existing contracts including contracts for flight and ground testing of solid rocket motors

Does that wording imply Ares I-Y?

Not necessarily - SLS would/will use SRBs.

The Senate bill uses this wording:
       (2) MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS.— 4
In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs 5
and support critical capabilities, the Administrator 6
shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify ex- 7
isting vehicle development and associated contracts 8
necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph 9
(1), including contracts for ground testing of solid 10
rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their avail- 11
ability for development of the Space Launch System. 12

[yg1968]

I read that it's 130 metric tons for SLS and no mention of the lower limit.  Does that sound right?   That's bigger than Direct, right?

The minimum requirement is 130 mT with the upper stage. But the upper stage doesn't have to be ready for December 2016.

[sdsds]

13 August 2007, http://www.space.com/news/070814_nasa_ares1_firststage.html

The cost-plus contract runs through 2013 and calls for ATK Launch Systems of Brigham City, Utah, to build eight boosters: five that will be used in ground tests starting in 2009 and three that will be used in flight tests beginning in 2012, according to Tom Williams, NASA's deputy program manager for the Ares I main stage.

Of course they had to choose an odd number of flight test motors!  It would be really fun to see an SLS launch that used all three....

[mr_magoo]

I read that it's 130 metric tons for SLS and no mention of the lower limit.  Does that sound right?   That's bigger than Direct, right?

The minimum requirement is 130 mT with the upper stage. But the upper stage doesn't have to be ready for December 2016.

Is there a version of Direct that does 130mt with the upper stage?   The charts show Direct topping out at 118mt with the J-2x in J241 cargo configuration.

It just caught my eye.  It sounds like a somewhat fancy, non-straightforward evolution.

[Mark Max Q]

So SRBs for the SLS means it's SD HLV, or can it still be something else?

Things that are not SD HLVs tend to be liquid boosters, right?

[Namechange User]

So SRBs for the SLS means it's SD HLV, or can it still be something else?

Things that are not SD HLVs tend to be liquid boosters, right?

Existing contracts, existing infrastructure, use of existing workforce where possible, relatively short development time, ~75 mT, it parrots the Senate bill in every meaningful way. 

So, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it would not be illogical to call it a duck.

[sdsds]

I read that it's 130 metric tons for SLS and no mention of the lower limit.  Does that sound right?   That's bigger than Direct, right?

The minimum requirement is 130 mT with the upper stage. But the upper stage doesn't have to be ready for December 2016.

Is there a version of Direct that does 130mt with the upper stage?   The charts show Direct topping out at 118mt with the J-2x in J241 cargo configuration.

It just caught my eye.  It sounds like a somewhat fancy, non-straightforward evolution.

DIRECT doesn't officially include J-241SH.

[mr_magoo]

There ya go.   Sounds like J241 SH on the high end then.   All the bells and whistles.

[Namechange User]

There ya go.   Sounds like J241 SH on the high end then.   All the bells and whistles.

No it doesn't.  It clearly states an initial operating range between 70-100 mT, without an upper stage.  It talks about evolution.  It does mention development of an upper stage and core in parallel, like the Senate bill, but does not specify the upper stage. 

[mr_magoo]

I havent read it yet.  I just read that space politics is saying it specifies a  “scalable capability of lifting payloads of at least 130 metric tons”.

The used quotes so I assumed it was present in the material.

[robertross]

I'm trying to (quickly) understand the differences, and at first glance I agree it looks alot like the Senate Bill, but I know things just aren't that simple. Hoping someone else has the time to do a proper comparison for us folks 

It actually could be that easy.  I don't believe that is actually the case here but without a doubt this version of the House bill is much, much closer to the Senate bill and that is a good thing and the immediate message that needs to be sent. 

Copied over...

Well at first blush all looks pretty reasonable. Question is: are the politicians reasonable with it? Time (which is short) will tell.

[psloss]

Story on spacenews.com:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/100923-house-nasa-bill.html

Excerpt that includes note about possible timing of a House vote:

Gordon’s revised legislation, which aides said could go to the House floor this week as a substitute to H.R. 5781, increases proposed funding levels for NASA commercial crew taxis to $1.2 billion over three years. That figure is still $400 million shy of the Senate’s $1.6 billion recommendation for commercial crew and cargo initiatives, but represents a sizeable increase over the original $464 million through 2013 recommended in H.R. 5781.

[sdsds]

Pulling out the proposed FY11 rounded numbers ($billions):

FY11:

  Exploration:
    SLS & MPCV:  3.4
    Human Research:  0.2
    CCDev:  0.4
    Robotic Precursors:  0.1
  Exploration subtotal:  4.0
 
  Space Ops:
    ISS:  2.8
    STS:  1.6
    Support:  0.7
  Space Ops subtotal:  5.1

  Science:
    Earth Science:  1.8
    Planetary Science:  1.5
    Astrophysics:  1.1
    Heliophysics:  0.6
  Science subtotal:  5.0

  Aeronautics and ST:
    Aeronautics:  0.6
    Space Technology:  0.6
  Aeronautics and ST subtotal:  1.2

  Education subtotal:  0.2

  Cross Agency Support:  3.1

  Construction:  0.4

FY11 total:  19.0

[sdsds]

It clearly states an initial operating range between 70-100 mT, without an upper stage. 

Yikes, I missed that entirely.  The House compromise has that language?  On which page, please!

(FWIW the 130 metric tons language is on line 20 of page 25.)

[Ben the Space Brit]

Is there a version of Direct that does 130mt with the upper stage?   The charts show Direct topping out at 118mt with the J-2x in J241 cargo configuration.

I think that they are using the short ton.  130 short tons equals about 118 metric tonnes.  If I'm right, then the language is explicitly demanding the J-130/J-246 family.


[edit]
Fixed quote tag error