Author Topic: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV  (Read 300190 times)

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2010 04:29 pm by Chris Bergin »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Commander Keen

  • Member
  • Posts: 98
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
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?

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
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 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.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
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
« Last Edit: 03/05/2010 04:46 pm by yg1968 »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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?
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Chris Bergin

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
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
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.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
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.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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?
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
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.

Offline Chris Bergin

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.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Chris Bergin

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.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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.......
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
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
« Last Edit: 03/05/2010 05:03 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80

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.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
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
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1