Author Topic: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV  (Read 300233 times)

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
First, a simple statement of observed experience, based on my thirty-plus years of working in the Congress: the number of cosponsors of a bill is NOT a determining factor in passage of a bill. I have seen many bills with an actual majority of members cosponsoring them, which have never even been reported our of committee. I have seen even more bills with either no or very few cosponsors get enacted into law.

Everything in the post above is true and also irrelevant to my point, because co-sponsorship of appropriation and authorization bills, the ones introduced by leadership, is irrelevant.  As most people already understand,  bills that fund the government do not require co-sponsorship.

On the other hand, bills that are not introduced at the behest of the administration or congressional leadership DO require demonstrations of support, otherwise the bills, and their content, are the equivalent of one hand clapping.  The standard demonstration of support for such bills is co-sponsorship.

So, yes, there are budget, appropriation and authorization bills introduced and passed every year without co-sponsorship, but these are not relevant to this discussion. And there are also situations where bills are thrown into the hopper at the last moment and subsequently integrated as amendments into other legislation, and in that form they are enacted into law, usually at the behest of leadership. The Hutchison bill does not seem to qualify as one of those situations.

The last argument is that the Hutchison bill won't be enacted into law as such, but key components will find their way into the NASA authorization. I agree, to the extent that those components are supported by Congress. How will the Administration and leadership determine whether these components are widely supported? The traditional approach would be via co-sponsorship of the Hutchison bill.  We are told now that such co-sponsorship isn't relevant, so I guess we are to depend on public statements of support by elected officials for the various goodies in the Hutchinson bill, speeches in support of lunar landings and the like.

We'll see. However, the somewhat irrelevant post by 51D Mascot reminds me of what politicians say before elections when they are trailing in the polls: "The only poll that matters is the election".


Hmmm.."irrelevant?" Did you read the opening line of the Hutchison bill, right after the word "A Bill"?  It says "To reauthorize the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Human Space Flight Activities and for other purposes." Section 9 of the bill is entitled "Authorization of Appropriations" and is exactly the format you would find in authorization bills. And as I said in my "irrelevant" post, the bill was structured so as to be the core of a 2010 NASA Authorization Act. Oh, and, by the way, Senator Hutchison is the Ranking Member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. the AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE that has jurisdiction for NASA. That makes her, as you say "Committee Leadership." (She would be Chair of the Committee if the Republicans were the Majority in the Senate).

I really would like to know the basis for your assertions about "standard demonstrations of support" and "bills not introduced at the behest of the administration or leadership." They are simply not accurate. Fortunately, the prospects of the Hutchison bill do not depend on you understanding the legislative process, and certainly not on you accepting my description of it, which is based on the fact that I've been involved directly in that process for a very long time.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2010 01:41 pm by 51D Mascot »
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline phantomdj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
  • Standing in the Saturn V nozzle
  • Merritt Island, Fl
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 5
John Shannon, the space shuttle program manager, said recently that if there was a significant shuttle extension there would be a gap of two years in shuttle flights because of the need to ramp up tank production again.

I thought we had two partially built tanks that could be completed well within this two year period he is talking about so ramp up could be done before these two tanks fly and there would be very little if no gap at all.  If you stretch the five flights (4 + EON) and then two flights with the partial tanks there shouldn’t be any gap or am I missing something?
SpaceX has become what NASA used to be in the '60's, innovative and driven.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
phantom,
I believe he actually said that there would be a two year gap in tank production, not the flights themselves.

He knows better than anyone, that the manifest can be moved around to cover that gap, should it be necessary.


But nobody is actually proposing to build any more new ET's.   The only thing we need, is to finish and fly all FIVE of the ones for which all the parts are currently in-stock and which are in various stages of completion right now, but which are not currently manifested to fly:

Current Manifest:

ET-135 = STS-131
ET-136 = STS-132
ET-137 = STS-134
ET-138 = STS-133
ET-122 = LON-335 (could be re-tasked to STS-135)

Additional In-Stock Tank Assemblies Which Can Be Readied To Fly:

ET-139 (in-stock, partially assembled)
ET-140 (in-stock, partially assembled)
ET-141 (in-stock, partially assembled)
ET-95 (in-stock, almost complete)

And if you look on L2 there is talk of another fully-built LWT tank which can also be made ready to fly, but I'll leave that to L2 members to learn all those details as they are still very fresh.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2010 03:18 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
But nobody is actually proposing to build any more new ET's.   

Well, that is NOT quite accurate.

Edit:  Ooops.  Left out a very important word....
« Last Edit: 03/10/2010 03:19 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
But nobody is actually proposing to build any more new ET's.   The only thing we need, is to finish and fly ALL of the ones which are in various stages of completion right now.

Ross.

Not building any additional shuttle sidemount ETs but starting an immediate transition to building Jupiter inline ETs would seem consistent with Senator Bill Nelson's call to fly out the current shuttle ET stockpile combined with the immediate development of an HLV to be chosen by NASA, but which uses solid boosters.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2010_record&page=S1254&position=all

Nelson's speech begins halfway down the middle column

EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
But nobody is actually proposing to build any more new ET's.   

Well, that is NOT quite accurate.

Edit:  Ooops.  Left out a very important word....

Hmmmm...that has the 'hint' of a jobs/SD-HLV motive there...

Offline Drapper23

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 262
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0


Rocket Engineering Via Zogby Poll  http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=786:2002-futron-study-one-basis-of-optimism-about-commercial-human-space-flight-says-ostp-staffer&catid=67:news&Itemid=27   
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/03/spacex-test-of-falcon-9s-engines-is-aborted.html  http://www.clickorlando.com/news/22788940/detail.html  We now know one of the main reasons NASA picked commercial space rockets over Direct 3--a Zogby Poll. Ladies & Gentlemen we know have Rocket Engineering decisions being made on the basis of Zogby Polls(See 1st link!). And have you heard about the 1st test firing on the pad yesterday of the Falcon 9 rocket--it fizzled out on the pad(See 2nd & Third Links!). Welcome to the new Zogby Poll Space Program!!!! 

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
That's funny.!!

(first one on the poll)

Personally Drapper, I don't think the inclusion of the SpaceX links are entirely relavent. That is standard stuff: it happens.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2010 03:35 pm by robertross »

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Since commercial space is all about surviving on it's revenue rather than tax dollars I don't see what's the big deal with zogby, considering they deal with finances (unless I missed something) Unless the people at  zogby will be the ones building new launch vehicles I fail so see your concern/outrage. They made an analysis on the potential market for private space, they didn't advise NASA to move away from Direct, because they deal with marketing not rocket designs.

It didn't fissile, it was aborted successfully. Be glad it didn't blow up. And anyway there already is a thread for the F9 test - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20799.0;topicseen
« Last Edit: 03/10/2010 03:47 pm by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Since commercial space is all about surviving on it's revenue rather than tax dollars I don't see what's the big deal with zogby, considering they deal with finances (unless I missed something) Unless the people at  zogby will be the ones building new launch vehicles I fail so see your concern/outrage. They made an analysis on the potential market for private space, they didn't advise NASA to move away from Direct, because they deal with marketing not rocket designs.


However, that is the misconception of all of this.  It will not survive without tax dollars because the market is not there to support it. 

While there will be off-shoots, such as Virgin with suborbital tourism and maybe a destination from Bigelow, that alone will not support all the other vehicles being proposed to be developed. 

So, what this is for the near- and medium-terms is government funded via firm-fixed-price contracts, although it is unclear how much captial funding these firms will provide because those details have not been worked out yet and should be another clue this is not right around the corner, for development and then firm-fixed-price contracts for services. 

However, unless the government subsidizes directly or the service price is intentionally inflated to cover the sustaining operations (which include all the things people tend to forget about when the vehicles are not flying) the "market" in it's present form cannot keep all these players active. 

While it is a bit of a "chicken and egg" scenerio it is definitely NOT about surviving on revenue totally independent from the government at this point. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.


Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0

However, that is the misconception of all of this.  It will not survive without tax dollars because the market is not there to support it.

Of course, it's a young market and establishing it will be hard, because private companies can't absorb as many financial hits induced by failure (either in R&D or in operations) as the government. That's why they're getting money to help lessen the risks involved. I am aware of this OV.

While there will be off-shoots, such as Virgin with suborbital tourism and maybe a destination from Bigelow, that alone will not support all the other vehicles being proposed to be developed. 

My understanding is that even though it won't support them directly with financing, it will help to show that there is a market for space tourism if Virgin and Bigelow are even nominally successful. Whether the other vehicles succeed or fail is up to their developers ultimately.

So, what this is for the near- and medium-terms is government funded via firm-fixed-price contracts, although it is unclear how much captial funding these firms will provide because those details have not been worked out yet and should be another clue this is not right around the corner, for development and then firm-fixed-price contracts for services. 

However, unless the government subsidizes directly or the service price is intentionally inflated to cover the sustaining operations (which include all the things people tend to forget about when the vehicles are not flying) the "market" in it's present form cannot keep all these players active. 

So if I understand correctly your concern is that it's uncertain if they can establish a market and reach a point where they don't need subsidies? One thing is certain if they don't try we'll never know.

While it is a bit of a "chicken and egg" scenerio it is definitely NOT about surviving on revenue totally independent from the government at this point. 

Yes, at this point.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The money earmarked for this is only 6 billion over 5 years.  I promise it will not be enough.  You have evidence of that already in the COTS Program world. 

All of this above just goes back to the phrase "hope is not a plan"
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Perhaps the 6 billion won't be enough, but I can't say for sure. I prefer to think of it as an experiment, not just sheer hope. It might produce a very interesting result or it might blow up in your face. You can't really tell, you just decide whether the potential gain is worth the risk. I take it you think it isn't, but I'm interested in what might come out of it.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2010 04:15 pm by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
...and the plot thickens...

http://www.space.com/news/space-shuttle-extension-needs-money-100309.html

Quote
WASHINGTON – The chief of NASA's space shuttle program said Tuesday that the agency could technically continue to fly its three aging orbiters beyond their planned 2010 retirement if ordered to do so by President Barack Obama and lawmakers. All it would take would be the extra funding needed to pay for it.

The money is there.  It is a question of "want to".

FINALLY the media reports John Shannon's comments. I wonder how Bolden will respond.... "eh em um...well you see ....um we could technically build things that could um....enable us to do that but its too expensive, too long, too dangerous, shuttle isn't safe, he did not consult me first, bla bla bla :can't, wouldn't, shouldn't, mustn't...."
The future is looking a little brighter for HSF. I think if, as was said here earlier, KBH bill is absorbed into a larger proposal as long two key things: shuttle extension to at least 2012 (because to 2015 I think will be removed as part of the comprimise), and the sdhlv and hard goals for beo in the next 20 years are there, things are ok.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Perhaps the 6 billion won't be enough, but I can't say for sure. I prefer to think of it as an experiment, not just sheer hope. It might produce a very interesting result or it might blow up in your face. You can't really tell, you just decide whether the potential gain is worth the risk. I take it you think it isn't, but I'm interested in what might come out of it.

I can say for sure it is not enough.

As for the "experiment", it is not wise to gamble with an entire industry where there is currently no plan, no timetable and insufficient funding to make a difference.  I promise you the result of this "experiment" is as follows:

1.  Near total destruction of this industry.  Unique and valuable skills and experience lost.
2.  Much more than projected costs for "commercial" development and with that schedules that move to the right.
3.  An ISS that has degraded and not lived up to it's intended purpose.
4.  A business case that has degraded for the "commercial" providers because of the degraded ISS.
5.  Political posturing calling NASA a failure and the "commercial experiment" a loss. 
6.  The United States of America has no more capability and lost its leadership in spaceflight.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Perhaps the 6 billion won't be enough, but I can't say for sure. I prefer to think of it as an experiment, not just sheer hope. It might produce a very interesting result or it might blow up in your face. You can't really tell, you just decide whether the potential gain is worth the risk. I take it you think it isn't, but I'm interested in what might come out of it.

I can say for sure it is not enough.

As for the "experiment", it is not wise to gamble with an entire industry where there is currently no plan, no timetable and insufficient funding to make a difference.  I promise you the result of this "experiment" is as follows:

1.  Near total destruction of this industry.  Unique and valuable skills and experience lost.
2.  Much more than projected costs for "commercial" development and with that schedules that move to the right.
3.  An ISS that has degraded and not lived up to it's intended purpose.
4.  A business case that has degraded for the "commercial" providers because of the degraded ISS.
5.  Political posturing calling NASA a failure and the "commercial experiment" a loss. 
6.  The United States of America has no more capability and lost its leadership in spaceflight.
Yeup. Thats about the whole of it.
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
phantom,
I believe he actually said that there would be a two year gap in tank production, not the flights themselves.

He knows better than anyone, that the manifest can be moved around to cover that gap, should it be necessary.


But nobody is actually proposing to build any more new ET's.   The only thing we need, is to finish and fly all FIVE of the ones for which all the parts are currently in-stock and which are in various stages of completion right now, but which are not currently manifested to fly:

Current Manifest:

ET-135 = STS-131
ET-136 = STS-132
ET-137 = STS-134
ET-138 = STS-133
ET-122 = LON-335 (could be re-tasked to STS-135)

Additional In-Stock Tank Assemblies Which Can Be Readied To Fly:

ET-139 (in-stock, partially assembled)
ET-140 (in-stock, partially assembled)
ET-141 (in-stock, partially assembled)
ET-95 (in-stock, almost complete)

And if you look on L2 there is talk of another fully-built LWT tank which can also be made ready to fly, but I'll leave that to L2 members to learn all those details as they are still very fresh.

Ross.
Thats: 9 flights of shuttle or, 8 flights plus one jupiter 130 test flight, or 7 flights plus 1 test flight and, if it is succesful, and operational jupiter flight. Thats why I like KBH :D
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
1.  Near total destruction of this industry.  Unique and valuable skills and experience lost.
2.  Much more than projected costs for "commercial" development and with that schedules that move to the right.
3.  An ISS that has degraded and not lived up to it's intended purpose.
4.  A business case that has degraded for the "commercial" providers because of the degraded ISS.
5.  Political posturing calling NASA a failure and the "commercial experiment" a loss. 
6.  The United States of America has no more capability and lost its leadership in spaceflight.

All of that is one possible outcome. And it assumes the current budget plan will pass unchanged and I think we can agree that's not likely. I saw finalfrontier say something about a shuttle extension to 2012 and I think that would be a good idea to ease the transition.

And I thought I was a pessimist about the future OV :)
« Last Edit: 03/10/2010 04:32 pm by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

And I thought I was a pessimist about the future OV :)

I want commercial spaceflight.  Anyone in this industry should.  I do not subscribe to either of the "extremes" with regard to this issue.

However, the current "lack of plan" and the above is not pessisism, it is realism based on knowledge and experience. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Tags:
 

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