24 (...) Provided further, That25 $696,000,000 shall be for commercial spaceflight activi-1 ties, of which $171,000,000 shall be made available after2 the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space3 Administration has certified that the commercial crew pro4 gram has undergone an independent benefit-cost analysis5 that takes into consideration the total Federal investment6 in the commercial crew program and the expected oper7 ational life of the International Space Station as described8 in the explanatory statement described in section 4 (in the9 matter preceding division A of this consolidated Act):
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) – NASA is funded at $17.6 billion in the bill, an increase of $120 million above the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. Within this total, $4.1 billion is provided for Exploration, including funding to keep NASA on schedule for upcoming Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and Space Launch System flight program milestones.
10 (...) Provided, That not less 11 than $1,197,000,000 shall be for the Orion Multi-Purpose 12 Crew Vehicle: Provided further, That not less than 13 $1,918,200,000 shall be for the Space Launch System, 14 which shall have a lift capability not less than 130 metric 15 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core 16 elements developed simultaneously: Provided further, That 17 of the funds made available for the Space Launch System, 18 $1,600,000,000 shall be for launch vehicle development 19 and $318,200,000 shall be for exploration ground sys-20 tems:
Here is a copy of the CJS Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 158 of the bill):http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-h3547-hamdt2samdt_xml.pdf
Here is a copy of the report (NASA starts at page 112 of the PDF):http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-FM-B.pdf$696M for commercial report but $171M is conditional on NASA obtaining an (unredacted) independant cost-benefit report for commercial crew. See pages 161-162 of the bill. See also pages 116-117 of the PDF of the report.
Well, NASA won't be able to get 130 t with a core with four RS-25 engines and solid boosters, new liquid boosters are required (which is two major projects, one for a new booster structure and one for a new liquid engine). core).
The total value of the FY2014 Omnibus Bill is $1.012 trillion. If that figure is the Federal Budget, then NASA's budget of $17.646 billion is about 1.74%.
That should be interesting. In a spirit of fairness I'd like to see the equivalent for SLS/Orion.
And what's with this sudden dash for 130 tonnes and complete development on the J-2X? Surely their best chance would be to go with the RS25D/E's for high performance?
The total value of the FY2014 Omnibus Bill is $1.012 trillion. If that figure is the Federal Budget, then NASA's budget of $17.646 billion is about 1.74%.The human spaceflight budget I assume comprises Exploration Systems + Space Operations (at least a major part of Space Ops is for ISS Ops). So the FY2014 human spaceflight budget is ($4.113 billion + $3.778 billion), say $7.891 billion, equivalent to about 0.78% of the Federal Budget.These figures seem to be higher than the figures currently used (1% and 0.5% respectively).Corrected typo: NASA's budget is $17.646 billion.
Quoting from page 161:"That not less than $1,918,200,000 shall be for the Space Launch System, which shall have a lift capability not less than 130 metric tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously"Well, NASA won't be able to get 130 t with a core with four RS-25 engines and solid boosters, new liquid boosters are required (which is two major projects, one for a new booster structure and one for a new liquid engine). There are other solutions that get 130 t, but they require a new core. For a new core with five engines, new solid boosters are required (which again is two major projects, one for the new boosters and one for the new core). For a new core with six engines no new boosters are required (this only requires one major project for the new core).
The agreement provides $1,600,000,000 under the "Exploration" heading to maintain critical forward momentum for the core development o f SLS and, where practicable, components that will allow SLS to become a 130 metric ton vehicle, including the J2-X engine, upper stage, advanced boosters and SLS-related infrastructure.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 01/14/2014 11:59 amThat should be interesting. In a spirit of fairness I'd like to see the equivalent for SLS/Orion. Congress doesn't need a cost/benefit analysis to show that SLS/Orion funnels a lot more money to their campaign contributors than commercial crew ever will.QuoteAnd what's with this sudden dash for 130 tonnes and complete development on the J-2X? Surely their best chance would be to go with the RS25D/E's for high performance?Hah, you thought Congressional budget bills were about being wise stewards of taxpayer money, and picking the solution that benefits the country the most? The naivety is charming. NASA is the piggybank of a couple of Congresspeople who sit on the appropriate authorizing or appropriating committee.~Jon
Quote from: jongoff on 01/14/2014 02:09 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 01/14/2014 11:59 amHah, you thought Congressional budget bills were about being wise stewards of taxpayer money, and picking the solution that benefits the country the most?This kind of snarkiness is immensely counterproductive.True, but that doesn't mean Jon's point is actually wrong.The agency is driven entirely by politics these days and it -- and its various programs -- are in shockingly poor shape because of it.I'll caveat that by saying that there are plenty of really good people working within the agency and the contractor network still, but the politics and bureaucracy have a thoroughly suffocating effect on most of their good works.Don't underestimate how bad things really are in this regard, because it would be seriously difficult to design a strategy intended to produce worse results than we're getting today.Ross. </Vent Mode> <Lurk Mode>
Quote from: john smith 19 on 01/14/2014 11:59 amHah, you thought Congressional budget bills were about being wise stewards of taxpayer money, and picking the solution that benefits the country the most?This kind of snarkiness is immensely counterproductive.
Hah, you thought Congressional budget bills were about being wise stewards of taxpayer money, and picking the solution that benefits the country the most?
Quote from: Go4TLI on 01/14/2014 04:35 pmQuote from: jongoff on 01/14/2014 02:09 pmHah, you thought Congressional budget bills were about being wise stewards of taxpayer money, and picking the solution that benefits the country the most?This kind of snarkiness is immensely counterproductive.True, but that doesn't mean Jon's point is actually wrong.
Quote from: jongoff on 01/14/2014 02:09 pmHah, you thought Congressional budget bills were about being wise stewards of taxpayer money, and picking the solution that benefits the country the most?This kind of snarkiness is immensely counterproductive.
Quoting from page 161:"That not less than $1,918,200,000 shall be for the Space Launch System, which shall have a lift capability not less than 130 metric tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously"(Many thanks to Yves for the salient reporting)Quote from: Simple SimonThe total value of the FY2014 Omnibus Bill is $1.012 trillion. If that figure is the Federal Budget, then NASA's budget of $17.646 billion is about 1.74%.NASA doesn't even get the two cents that we get here on this forum! At least this legislation is modestly more honest regarding the throw weight of SLS as being "not less than" 130 tonnes. The previous legislation pretended to what I thought was a reasonable effort to grow the launch vehicle from 70 to 130 tons (or tonnes).Now, the sky truly is the limit on the throw weight, since that is the legal meaning of "not less than". Worse, no budgeted or prioritized missions for this LV. How do they ever expect to get to Mars? Can anybody here report briefly on the SLS current schedule? Are they meeting their milestones? Are they on budget?There's my two cents.PS: I like the like button!
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 01/14/2014 01:29 pmQuoting from page 161:"That not less than $1,918,200,000 shall be for the Space Launch System, which shall have a lift capability not less than 130 metric tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously"(Many thanks to Yves for the salient reporting)Quote from: Simple SimonThe total value of the FY2014 Omnibus Bill is $1.012 trillion. If that figure is the Federal Budget, then NASA's budget of $17.646 billion is about 1.74%.NASA doesn't even get the two cents that we get here on this forum! At least this legislation is modestly more honest regarding the throw weight of SLS as being "not less than" 130 tonnes. The previous legislation pretended to what I thought was a reasonable effort to grow the launch vehicle from 70 to 130 tons (or tonnes).Now, the sky truly is the limit on the throw weight, since that is the legal meaning of "not less than". Worse, no budgeted or prioritized missions for this LV. How do they ever expect to get to Mars? Can anybody here report briefly on the SLS current schedule? Are they meeting their milestones? Are they on budget?There's my two cents.PS: I like the like button!How do you read this? I'm reading this as ....let's get directly to Block II.
I completely disagree. Jon's entire argument is that the current path and program provides "no benefit" to the country. That is his opinion, paraded as undeniable fact with the only way to prove it being having knowledge of some alternate universe where his preferred method is the path forward. This goes further to ignore the likelihood that politics would not enter his preferred solution with the same/different politicians arguing and fighting for that particular piece of the pie. Nobody has said that the current way of things is some utopia.
SLS has become just another boondoggle just as bad as Ares-I + Ares-V ever was (and most people on the forum a few years back likely recall my opinions of that!). Sadly, the current situation has occurred for much the same reason too; a few usual suspects in DC who want to plus-up the funding for a single project, with the returns heading for their own districts/regions.