NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[Namechange User]

With that in mind, I disagree that NASA is "overcompensating" in how it is treating "commercial". These are very small sums of money compared to what NASA has spent over the years on manned space flight.

I never said, ever, that "commercial was not making progress".  In fact I been an advocate of commercial space in a real, practical way that would, in my opinion, much better guarantee its success in forums (and not internet-based) far beyond here.  While the sums are relatively small, as you said, never under-estimate the importance of a good, integrated plan. 

Not that it wouldn't be great to have an SLS but, honestly speaking, I would say it is quite likely that we arrive in 2015, the FH has flown a couple of times even if its performance may be at 40t instead of 53t, and SLS is still at least 5 years away from flight.

Would it make sense then that any manned space exploration keeps waiting for the SLS, or should Congress ensure at that point that a couple of smaller, COTS/CRS-like vehicles and a couple of manned launchers are available if the cost to do this is acceptable?

Consequently, why is it not reasonable that Congress starts funding these options today, if minimally, and ensures that multiple launch vehicles shall be made compatible with any new manned spacecraft?

Again, your first paragraph is completely subjective. 

For the second paragraph, who ever said, certainly not me, that SLS was the answer to every launch?  In fact, I am on the record that SLS and smaller LV's, that can be purchased outright on a competetive basis because that is where the market is, need to work in concert with each other.  Some don't like what I have to say and ignore that part. 

For your third paragraph, is that not exactly what is happening, in some cases with NASA money?  EELVs?  Check.  F9?  Check.  FH?  In development, we'll see.  Taurus II?  Check.  Liberty?  We'll see. 

Is Orion not going to do a test flight on a Dela 4?  Is Boeing not desinging the CST-100 to be LV "agnostic"?  The list could go on. 

[jongoff]

It's just ridiculous that technology development is always being held hostage to the next soon-to-be-canceled megaproject.

~Jon

Interesting.  Again with the insults and the promise of what you do, with your government-funding as long as you get that, being "better". 

Um, no. Do I think that IPP's projects in general are much higher ROI than politically-motivated megaprojects like SLS?  Yes. 

Is this "what I'm doing with my government funding"?  For the most part no.  As I said in the previous post, while Altius is getting some money (only $8k so far) for an SBIR, but many of the programs I'm defending are ones Altius isn't currently involved in or likely to be involved in in the future.

As for the "insult" that was just me being cynical.  And with NASA's and Congress's dismal track record over the past 30 years when it comes to completing new NASA launch vehicles, I'm really not sure why I have to justify that cynicism.

Sorry if you felt insulted.

~Jon

[Namechange User]

If SpaceX wins will ULA stand for that?  If ULA wins will SpaceX stand for that?  After all, we are trying to foster competition in this class rocket in order to drive down costs, etc.  How can NASA speak out of both sides of it's mouth on this point?

Bolden wants to move to a quarterly launch schedule, where every quarter we put up 100mT using an HLV. If somehow both SpaceX and ULA were to complete their heavy lifters and present their services to NASA, they could each be signed up for two launches per year for some short term, say three years. One with the greatest reliability and lowest operating costs would get more business after that three year period, terms to be determined.

Frankly, I think SpaceX would simply be happy to have its Merlin 2 and 10m capability development funded, even if they lost the long term operational contract with NASA. Saves them the cash and they have other things they want to do with Falcon XX.

ULA is in a weird spot; things would be better if they were made a completely independent company from Boeing and LM, and were better able to control their fate. If I were Bolden, had I the ability I would use the Atlas V Heavy contract to twist some arms to free ULA of its masters. However, he does not have that freedom now, no matter what the Pentagon thinks of the issue.

I see.  So if I am understanding this correctly, NASA pays for two HLVs (because neither company is going to do it on its own dime where the only customer is NASA) instead of one, again, with the "hope and assumption" that either, or more importantly both of them together, are cheaper? 

Then, at some point, somehow NASA will just wash it's hands of one of these "investments" pending which one is a better deal. 

Then you get to the root of it.  That SpaceX wants to have some hardware completely payed for by the government.  Would be great from a business perspective no doubt, but if the government pays for it totally, it owns it.  The government has authority of the requirements, design, etc. 

General Bolden, or any government official, has no authority, nor should they, to "free" a company from their "masters" that is completely legit. 

[neilh]

Jimgagnon and OV106, could you perhaps move the HLV debate to a more appropriate thread?

[Mark S]

Bolden wants to move to a quarterly launch schedule, where every quarter we put up 100mT using an HLV.

LOLWUT? Um, I mean, do you have any documentation on that rather bold assertion?

[neilh]

From what I've seen (on iPhone so can't verify) the bill ups the SLS required payload to 130mt, with the upper stage developed simultaneously with the rest. Does it still keep the 2016 deadline that was set for the 70mt vehicle, or has that been pushed back?

[Ben the Space Brit]

From what I've seen (on iPhone so can't verify) the bill ups the SLS required payload to 130mt, with the upper stage developed simultaneously with the rest. Does it still keep the 2016 deadline that was set for the 70mt vehicle, or has that been pushed back?

From what I've read, the 2016 objective stays (it would be an exaggeration to call it a 'deadline').  However, I only have one reaction to Congress expecting NASA to to build that behemoth in just five years.  It starts with a sad, bitter laugh and ends with cancellation.

IMO, The 70t core is doable by 2016; The 100t core is probably just slightly out of reach by a year or so.  However, the full three-stage 130t IMLEO is a fantasy on that time scale.

[jimgagnon]

Bolden wants to move to a quarterly launch schedule, where every quarter we put up 100mT using an HLV.

LOLWUT? Um, I mean, do you have any documentation on that rather bold assertion?

That was part of the draft BAA for HLV study: 400mT/year: at 100mT per launch, that works out to one a quarter.
 

[yg1968]

From what I've seen (on iPhone so can't verify) the bill ups the SLS required payload to 130mt, with the upper stage developed simultaneously with the rest. Does it still keep the 2016 deadline that was set for the 70mt vehicle, or has that been pushed back?

From what I've read, the 2016 objective stays (it would be an exaggeration to call it a 'deadline').  However, I only have one reaction to Congress expecting NASA to to build that behemoth in just five years.  It starts with a sad, bitter laugh and ends with cancellation.

IMO, The 70t core is doable by 2016; The 100t core is probably just slightly out of reach by a year or so.  However, the full three-stage 130t IMLEO is a fantasy on that time scale.

51D Mascot has commented on past versions of the full-year CR that the 130mt language doesn't actually add a new requirement that wasn't already there, it simply reaffirms the ultimate objective of building a 130mt SLV. In other words, you can go ahead with the 70mt SD-HLV as a first step but it has to be able to evolve to a 130mt SLS.

The 130mt requirement is also a way of ensuring that the J-2X contract and the 5 segment boosters contract don't get terminated since they will very likely be used for the 130mt SD-HLV. The December 2016 deadline required by the NASA Authorization bill will still apply but not for the 130mt SLS. If a 70mt SD-HLV is ready for 2016, the NASA Authorization deadline of December 2016 would be met.

[rklaehn]

From what I've seen (on iPhone so can't verify) the bill ups the SLS required payload to 130mt, with the upper stage developed simultaneously with the rest. Does it still keep the 2016 deadline that was set for the 70mt vehicle, or has that been pushed back?

That seems to be the case. According to the space policy blog by jeff foust:

In exploration, the CR directs NASA to spend at least $1.2 billion on the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $1.8 billion on the Space Launch System “which shall have a lift capability not less than 130 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously.”

So it seems that incremental development with a 70mt initial version without upper stage is explicitly forbidden. It's the full 130mt vehicle or nothing.

[Namechange User]

So it seems that incremental development with a 70mt initial version without upper stage is explicitly forbidden. It's the full 130mt vehicle or nothing.

No.

[rklaehn]

So it seems that incremental development with a 70mt initial version without upper stage is explicitly forbidden. It's the full 130mt vehicle or nothing.

No.

I don't like it either. But how else do you interpret the "which shall have a lift capability not less than 130 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously." part? I'm assuming that jeff foust is directly quoting.

[Namechange User]

So it seems that incremental development with a 70mt initial version without upper stage is explicitly forbidden. It's the full 130mt vehicle or nothing.

No.

I don't like it either. But how else do you interpret the "which shall have a lift capability not less than 130 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously." part? I'm assuming that jeff foust is directly quoting.

Political direction for what Congress ultimately expects. 

[JohnFornaro]

don't like it either. But how else do you interpret the "which shall have a lift capability not less than 130 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously." part? I'm assuming that jeff foust is directly quoting.

This particular wording says exactly that the lift capability shall be 130 tons.  It doesn't say anything about "evolvability".  However, this plain language has been spun to suggest that there is indeed an intent to start at 70 and end at 130.  While the evolutionary path from 70 to 130 makes sense to me and is what I thought the "plan for the plan" was, the quoted language simply doesn't say that.

It's not surprising that there's substantial confusion on the matter.  Personally, I don't know what they really mean.

[Prober]

[

 

I believe they have that flexibility, so long as they can justify it to the approps folks in their submission of the FY 2011 amended operating plan. They just need to be able to demonstrate COTS doesn't need it to stay on--or make up lost--schedule, since ISS logistics resupply is the critical area of concern in the near-term. (If no COTS service available within 18 months after last shuttle flight, ISS will have to be "gracefully degraded" with less crew--and thus less available research time.)

"gracefully degraded"------ LMAO
Try this: "What we've been told by NASA is that if we don't reach the space station by the end of this year, there's a risk that they will have to de-man the space station next year. We've got to be sure that we get to the space station. That is very much our primary focus."


"We have a very serious responsibility here because the space shuttle is coming to a close," SpaceX founder and chief executive Elon Musk told reporters here at the 27th National Space Symposium Tuesday (April 12). 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20110413/sc_space/privaterocketfirmunderpressuretofillspaceshuttlevoid

[Pheogh]

[

 

I believe they have that flexibility, so long as they can justify it to the approps folks in their submission of the FY 2011 amended operating plan. They just need to be able to demonstrate COTS doesn't need it to stay on--or make up lost--schedule, since ISS logistics resupply is the critical area of concern in the near-term. (If no COTS service available within 18 months after last shuttle flight, ISS will have to be "gracefully degraded" with less crew--and thus less available research time.)

"gracefully degraded"------ LMAO
Try this: "What we've been told by NASA is that if we don't reach the space station by the end of this year, there's a risk that they will have to de-man the space station next year. We've got to be sure that we get to the space station. That is very much our primary focus."


"We have a very serious responsibility here because the space shuttle is coming to a close," SpaceX founder and chief executive Elon Musk told reporters here at the 27th National Space Symposium Tuesday (April 12). 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20110413/sc_space/privaterocketfirmunderpressuretofillspaceshuttlevoid

So can we all agree that OV's doom and gloom isn't manufactured for the sake of SDLV? The simple reality is that a single thread supply line is never smart, especially when 6 lives and a 100 billion investment is at the other end of the line. NASA simply needs to get on board with what Congress has asked them to do.

One thing is for certain, if NASA fails to field a alternate supply capability (due to feet dragging) and SpaceX fails for one reason or another I will lay the blame squarely on NASA leadership, period.

[sdsds]

A summary regarding FY11:

* Congress and NASA must now have an understanding that progress on five segment boosters and J-2X will not be compromised for lack of FY11 funding.  (Made explicit by the "130 tons simultaneously" requirement.)

* Congress and NASA must now have an understanding that work will be funded for Orion/MPCV, both for the Lockheed-Martin's CM and the subcontractor's SM, using FY11 funds.  ("Show me the main engine!"  "Show me the solar arrays!")

What remains (IMHO) is the 4-SSME vs. 5-SSME design question.  I expect NASA to come to Congress (eventually) with a 5-SSME design.  I hope Congress will have the chutzpah to say, "Show us the proof that a 4-SSME stretched core with five segment boosters doesn't meet the requirement."  (Which it pretty obviously does.)

[libs0n]

So can we all agree that OV's doom and gloom isn't manufactured for the sake of SDLV? The simple reality is that a single thread supply line is never smart, especially when 6 lives and a 100 billion investment is at the other end of the line. NASA simply needs to get on board with what Congress has asked them to do.

One thing is for certain, if NASA fails to field a alternate supply capability (due to feet dragging) and SpaceX fails for one reason or another I will lay the blame squarely on NASA leadership, period.

1. COTS/CRS is dual string.

2. Dual string launch capacity already exits independent of the COTS/CRS efforts in the EELVs.  Spending 12 billion on a SDHLV does not buy you redundancy that does not already exist.

3.  Shuttle extension isn't happening.  SLS isnt going to be around till 2016 at best.  So where are your, and OV-106's calls for

1. ATVs or HTVs launched on EELV
2. Increased CRS mission procurement

to address the issue you and he have trumped up?

[Namechange User]

3.  Shuttle extension isn't happening.  SLS isnt going to be around till 2016 at best.  So where are your, and OV-106's calls for

1. ATVs or HTVs launched on EELV
2. Increased CRS mission procurement

to address the issue you and he have trumped up?

Hold on there cowboy.  First of all my "doom and gloom" never had anything to do with a particular self-servicing interest.  I am personally offended that some would see it as such. 

I tend to speak in reality, as I see it.  I note that the vast majority of my arguements do not meet with equal counter-arguements.  I try to speak with as many details and rationale as I can and again see few counter-arguements that ever go as in depth. 

I have "trumped up" nothing.  I have explained all your points, and their perspective short-comings in detail in many a past-post.  Try looking it up, maybe you will learn something. 

[Jorge]

Building friendship with many nations, including China, is as American as Apple Pie.

I have no problem with building friendship with other countries with spaceflight and support what was done with Russia Europe and Japan, but I would not allow the Chinese within a thousand yards of my program.

And wouldn't you have said the same thing about the Soviets/Russians just a few decades ago? 

Dunno about Ron, but I distinguish between the Soviets and the Russians. I do not believe sustained cooperation between the USSR and the USA was either sustainable nor desirable for the USA. I don't have the same objection to cooperation with Russia in the post-Soviet era. Serious US-Russian cooperation began within months of the fall of the USSR. I do not believe this was a coincidence; it is obvious that US leaders at the time recognized the potential of Russia's post-Soviet government.

I feel the same way about the People's Republic of China; I believe cooperation with a post-PRC China has possibilities, depending on what form that government takes.