NASA Authorization Act pushes for Moon and Mars priority

[Chris Bergin]

Never clever to write in the middle of the night inbetween sleeps, but hopefully this ties in some of our content on the Lunar and Mars missions with some key lines from the House Authorization Act draft....

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/06/nasa-act-pushes-moon-mars-priority/

Here's the 80 page draft I was kindly sent, by the way:

[scienceguy]

Wow. Cool article! You mean they actually have a destination?

[woods170]

Wow. Cool article! You mean they actually have a destination?

Chris: very well written article, as always.

@Scienceguy:
They have a whole lot of destinations. Go to Mars, via lunar orbit, lunar surface, cis-lunar, Lagrange points, Mars moons and then finally the surface of Mars itself.
This is even worse than the non-plan Obama came up with.
NASA will need multiple landers, deep space habitats and the likes, even more so than what Obama proposed. And naturally, the funds needed for all that stuff will never be appropriated by US Congress. That unidentified administration official is correct: this draft authorization act "is a non-starter".
The plan from the Obama administration is not getting us anywhere, but this latest draft from the House is really rediculous.

[spectre9]

SLS has always been a moon rocket.

It was naive to believe otherwise.

Getting an administrator that didn't want to repeat Apollo like everybody else at NASA was a master stroke by Obama, gotta hand that one to him.

Being able to stop NASA from doing CxP lite? Impossible. Tried and failed.

I'll settle for Lunar surface exploration. A man hasn't landed on the moon during my lifetime and I'd like to live to see the first woman.

I hope a new moon program is embraced and isn't bloated by things like Ares 1/V and Altair. SLS with a simple 2 man lander is enough to get the job done.

[Proponent]

I wonder whether the House might be cajoled into formally explaining the basis for the "finding" in Title II, Sec. 203:

"(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that the Space Launch System is the most practical approach to reaching the Moon, Mars, and beyond, and reaffirms the policy and minimum capability requirements contained in such section."

[john smith 19]

I wonder whether the House might be cajoled into formally explaining the basis for the "finding" in Title II, Sec. 203:

"(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that the Space Launch System is the most practical approach to reaching the Moon, Mars, and beyond, and reaffirms the policy and minimum capability requirements contained in such section."

Now that would be interesting. 

But let's remember Congress Authorizes all kinds of stuff.

If there's no money in the Appropriations act it's meaningless. 

[R7]

Never clever to write in the middle of the night inbetween sleeps

..but you know you're a space geek extraordinaire when you do that  the rest of us just turn cheek and continue dreaming Skylons. Good stuff, as always.

I guess the predicament is

1. do manned exploration on Moon in 2020s
2. do manned exploration on Mars in 2030s
3. have enough funds to do it

and NASA gets to pick only two options.

[Rocket Science]

Nice article Chris, I’m always interested in the latest kabuki dance craze on Capitol Hill. I’m still reminded of that line from a film “show me the money”... 

[psloss]

Here's the 80 page draft I was kindly sent, by the way:

Thanks. (/unlurk)

[Chris Bergin]

Thanks guys. Glad it came across well enough!

[JohnFornaro]

Well, the headline says it all, in my opinion, and I quite approve of the principle.

With the "minimum maximum" throw weight of 130 tons, according to the few people I've talked to, SLS should be able to build a lunar base in twenty ton chunks.  An L1 ring station could be built in significantly larger chunks.

It's clearly true that it matters little whether you start the journey of a thousand miles with the left foot or the right foot.

Therefore, in my opinion, it is of less importance which of these options is implemented first.  The "thousand mile" destination, Mars, will be more rapidly achieved by setting up two base camps to support the journey.

The key factor for success, and pretty much the only factor which will guarantee the success of an eventual martian base, is the continued intent of Congress to support that goal over the next three decades.

Without that long term intent, there is not likely to be much accomplishment along the lines of eventually establishing a martian base.  This would lend more credence to my conjecture that we are being incompetently kept on planet by our government.

Congress cannot force the aerospace industry and academicians to properly scope and cost the many missions needed to build a cislunar economy and martian base; these political constituencies will have to agree among themselves to cooperate in a larger vision.

I keep thinking that Congress and the President would reward success along the way to setting up a martian base, but again, success could only happen with a cooperative intention among the constituencies.

Now to read the article past the headline.

[JohnFornaro]

Nice article.

I'm beginning to come around to the idea of a manned Phobos mission, as a precursor to a manned orbital mission to its nearby planet, in order to finally determine whether or not Mars has current life.

[Chris Bergin]

So I assume there's going to be a hearing that's webcasted today? Everyone keep an eye on it, as I'm in and out all day.

[yg1968]

Here's the 80 page draft I was kindly sent, by the way:

Thanks for the copy of the bill. Nobody else has posted it yet.

[yg1968]

So I assume there's going to be a hearing that's webcasted today? Everyone keep an eye on it, as I'm in and out all day.

Yes, it starts in 15 minutes. See this link:

http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-space-hearing-nasa-authorization-act-2013

[yg1968]

Hearing has just started.

[newpylong]

Mr. Palazzo opening statement:

Must focus on core programs: SLS/Orion/ISS/JWST/Commercial Crew

Commercial Crew 700 million per year not blank check, deadlines need to be met. Must be back to ISS from US by 2017.

Asteroid mission not authorized.

[yg1968]

Palazzo says that 2017 for commercial crew is not negotiable. NASA must find a way to get it done for 2017 even if it means overhauling the program.

Asteroid retrieval mission will not be funded in the bill and they will work with the appropriations to prevent any funding for it.

[yg1968]

Ms. Edwards says that the bill isn't bi-partisan. She wasn't happy with the Earth Science and the Technology program cuts.

[newpylong]

Johnson says more tasks being asked of NASA with less funding. Also not happy with Earth Science cuts.

[yg1968]

Ms. Johnson. Not happy about the bill. Cuts NASA funding and adds unfunded goals. Also not happy about the cuts to Earth science and Technology. Doesn't like the 2017 deadline for commercial crew. It could lead to safety issues. Says this bill is DOA in the Senate. 

[newpylong]

and my feed just died.

[yg1968]

Me too.

Here is Palazzo' opening statement:
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-%20SY16-WState-P000601-20130619.pdf

Squyres' statement:
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY16-WState-SSquyres-20130619.pdf

Young's statement:
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY16-WState-ATYoung-20130619.pdf

[Rocket Science]

Up again, reload...

[Prober]

Mr Young is talking about the need for a real roadmap. and is very happy to see this.

[Prober]

Thanks guys. Glad it came across well enough!

made for a happy start for my day.
 
Glad to see some leadership out of Washington.

[Prober]

Mr. Brooks is not happy with the SLS funding it needs 1.8 bill.

[Andy DC]

Rohrabacher really doesn't have a clue. Thinks Atlas and Delta are alternatives to SLS. Thinks Mars Inspiration is all we need for Mars.

[Prober]

Seems to be some interest in cancelling SLS Block1, and going forward to Block2.
 
The video (if available) would be very interesting to watch.

[yg1968]

Rohrabacher really doesn't have a clue. Thinks Atlas and Delta are alternatives to SLS. Thinks Mars Inspiration is all we need for Mars.

He said in conjunction with propellant depots.

[yg1968]

Squyres is answering the question very honestly. It's refreshing. He mentioned that he doesn't think that we can afford both important SLS missions and the ISS at the same time. He thinks that you can do one or the other but not both at the same time. But he emphasized that he thinks that the ISS is really important. 

[JBF]

I'm sorry unless they can increase NASA's budget this is just a dog and pony show.

[newpylong]

I am getting the understanding that through testimony that most people believe we cannot continue the exploration program beyond 2021 while still paying for ISS.

[yg1968]

Squyres mentioned that he thinks that the bill cuts Earth science too much. But he also thinks that the President was cutting planetary science too much in his FY 2014 budget.  He thinks that there needs to be better distributed cuts instead of either of these options.

[yg1968]

Hearing is over.

[cro-magnon gramps]

found it interesting, that both witnesses think that at present funding, Missions to Mars will never happen... makes talk of flexible plan, step by step, incremental advances in exploration, a mockery of NASAs ability to actually complete those steps... 

Edit I found little of positive encouragement in this meeting;

aside from the forthright and open hard questions and statements about NASA's funding, the serious amount of Oversight Creep since the Apollo Era, and the increase in programs that NASA has been asked to do; it is little wonder that NASA is moving like an old man with a 300 lb weight on it's back trying to implement any program. 

[yg1968]

Here's the 80 page draft I was kindly sent, by the way:

Thanks for the copy of the bill. Nobody else has posted it yet.

The House has now posted the bill on their website:
House Draft Bill

[newpylong]

Yes, I do not know if they will ever be solved but at least the right questions are being asked for the first time that I can remember. Cold hard facts.

[Chris Bergin]

Thanks for covering this guys!

[Star One]

Squyres is answering the question very honestly. It's refreshing. He mentioned that he doesn't think that we can afford both important SLS missions and the ISS at the same time. He thinks that you can do one or the other but not both at the same time. But he emphasized that he thinks that the ISS is really important. 

It would be ridiculous to abandon ISS at this stage when it has taken it so long & cost so much money to get there & if that means delaying SLS then it's going to have to be that way.

Also the cuts should be more evenly distributed and not just all seemingly taken out of the planetary budget.

[ChileVerde]

Seems to be some interest in cancelling SLS Block1, and going forward to Block2.

Yes. From the draft bill Chris just posted,

1 (b) REPORT. Working with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, the Administrator shall transmit a report to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act that addresses the effort and budget required to enable and utilize a cargo variant of the 130 ton Space Launch System configuration described in section 302(c) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010 (42 10 U.S.C. 18322(c)). This report shall also include consideration of the technical requirements of the scientific and national security communities related to such Space Launch System and shall directly assess the utility and estimated cost savings obtained by using such Space Launch System for national security and space science missions.

This harks back to the recent "Why is the 130-tonne SLS a Senate priority?" thread, the OP of which contained,

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31392.msg1027498#msg1027498

    http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=43563

    Explanatory Statement for the Senate Substitute Continuing Resolution (NASA Excerpts)

        Source: Senate Appropriations Committee
        Posted Tuesday, March 12, 2013

<snip>

    SLS vehicle development.-- Support for NASA's evolvable SLS development approach, which will provide a 70 ton SLS configuration by 2017 and build to a 130 ton configuration as work is completed on an upper stage and advanced booster system, is reiterated. However, NASA is urged to identify and implement ways to accelerate the schedule for the attainment of the 130 ton configuration. To enable better congressional oversight of NASA's progress, language from the House report regarding requirements for quarterly SLS funding reports is adopted by reference.

<snip>

Unless this is just Jungian synchonicity/morphic resonance in action, it looks like there is some movement afoot to try to get the 130 tonne SLS moved up in priority. 

BTW, isn't "cargo variant of the 130 tonne Space Launch System" a bit redundant? AFAIK, NASA has indicated that the 130 t SLS would be needed only for cargo. (Whatever "cargo" might turn out to be.)

[TomH]

Outstanding coverage. Thanks Chris for the great intro article and establishing such an excellent forum for real time updates and discussion.

Big Huge Sigh. Too many chiefs. Too many egos all puffed up in each other's faces. The House, Senate, and Administration all have their own agendas. Conflicting orders given by too many people and not enough money to do much of it at all. Leaders don't know how to work together for the common good these days. Every single one of them thinks he can just demand his own way and somehow get what he wants. Like bratty little boys in a sandbox. It's amazing that NASA is accomplishing as much as it does as well as it does with such disfunctional direction from above.

One single thing got us to the moon. The Soviets put a satelite in space before we did and a man in space before we did. Apollo was about saving face. I fear the only thing that will really get our leaders to pull together on one plan and also appropriate sufficient funds will be when China sends its first crew beyond cic-lunar space.

[butters]

The only positive aspect is that Congress is demanding a roadmap toward Mars, which NASA has previously explained as "SLS, flexible path, yada yada yada, Mars!". So that would presumably demonstrate that NASA is incapable of executing said roadmap within expected funding levels.

It seems like "the gap" is just one of the humiliations that NASA must suffer before, hopefully, we can agree on combination of budget and roadmap that are consistent with each other. Bolden will probably resign in frustration in the coming months, and we can probably expect some circular firing squad action ahead.

This bill is not progress. This is fodder for the recriminations to come.

[randomly]

It's almost a decade now since the VSE was announced and we have basically made no progress toward ANY HSF goal with 10's of billions of dollars spent. All these proposed projects are so long term that it seems highly unlikely that any will survive the political ebb and flow for any of them to come to fruition.

HSF seems to engender so much political squabbling that Congress + NASA at this point in history are incapable of a focused enough and long term enough commitment to produce meaningful results. It seems more likely that HSF progress will have to be made by commercial efforts to make any sustained progress, since they seem to be the only interested entities with enough focus to achieve the goals. Estimates of Mars in the 2030's coupled with NASA's history of budget and schedule performance means essentially never.

I have always been a big fan and advocate of HSF, but after decades of watching NASA we might be better served to cancel Nasa's HSF efforts and put the money toward something that can actually be accomplished.

[Lobo]

I'm sorry unless they can increase NASA's budget this is just a dog and pony show.

I don't know that it's soley about budget.  Every government agency claims they need more money to do anything more.  Even though the agencies that get more money often don't do any more, and that money is just burned up in the beuracrcy.  (the Education Department comes to mind).

I think if NASA had more latitude (and were directed to do so) to take low cost options to accomplish goals like lunar landings, rather than be constrained by politicians to protect jobs and legacy hardware and overhead, then I think NASA could probably do less with more. 

Does anyone think that SpaceX or ULA or Boeing or LM with the annual budget NASA has couldn't relatively quickly develop a new HLV, a crew space craft, and a lunar lander? 

ULA, Boeing, and Lockmart would probably spend more than SpaceX, but I think they'd still get it done within current budgets. 
That is what NAA2010 should have done.  Instead of specifying what type of HLV there would be, and what it would use, it should have given NASA the job of getting US crew service to the ISS by 2013 or 2015, and to be back on the moon by 2020.  And given them the latitude to figure out how to do that within budget.
(Although given all of Bolden's foot dragging in 2010 prior to NAA2010, I can see Congress not trusting him with too much latitude.  But maybe they could have set up milestones that needed to be met or something to make sure Bolden didn't continue his foot dragging).

I do get that NASA is both being told how it must spend it's money, and then given more goals without more money, and have a no-win situation on certain things.  But I think the problem is as much that they are being told how to spend the money, as well as enormous beuracracy, rather than that there's not enough money to go to the moon. 
The private sector often is tasked to do more with existing or shrinking budgets...and they do it.  BUt they are goal/solution oriented rather than process oriented. 
They can answer the question, "What do you need to get this done in this amount of time with this budget?"

And the boss will do it if they want to achieve the goal on time and within budget.

The question posed to NASA and other government agencies seems to be more, "What do you need to use these assets and keep these people working in these areas to get this done in this amount of time?

And of course the answer is always, "More money"...and/or "More time".

If they want to hold money and time constant, then other factors must be allowed to be changed.

[Lobo]

I gotta say I'm very happy to see this.  Like I said, if there's not more money, then NASA needs some freedom.

Getting a new Administrator that wants to use the time and money to actually get astronauts back on the Moon with reasonable budgets and timeframes would be -very- helpful too I think.

I'm afraid to say I've lost confidence in Bolden in trying to go to the moon, even if he were given more freedom and latitude by politicians to go with more cost effective solutions rather than protecting jobs in congressional districts, I don't know that I'd trust him to not just drag his feet and work against any such plan.

[Lar]

It would be ridiculous to abandon ISS at this stage when it has taken it so long & cost so much money to get there & if that means delaying SLS then it's going to have to be that way.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If it comes to ISS or SLS, the answer's obvious... kill SLS and use commercial for all cargo. Doesn't mean it will come out that way but it's still an obvious answer.

[yg1968]

So I assume there's going to be a hearing that's webcasted today? Everyone keep an eye on it, as I'm in and out all day.

Yes, it starts in 15 minutes. See this link:

http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-space-hearing-nasa-authorization-act-2013

Archived of the hearing has now been posted. See the link above.

[clongton]

Wow, this is an amazing article Chris. Thank you. I have a few observations (no surprise there) that I’d like to share. My comments are on both this excellent article and the Draft copy of the Authorization Act which generated it.

Both the Authorization Acts and their companion Appropriations Acts are noted for their uses of the word “SHALL” as in “the Administrator shall” to compel some action. This new bill actually includes the opposite wording as well, actually forbidding NASA from expending funds on specific projects. For example in the article paragraph 4, the EM-2 mission is mentioned, referencing sending a crewed Orion to lunar orbit to meet up with a captured asteroid. Yet the HR document states on page 62 under Title VII – Policy Provisions, Sec 701. Asteroid Retrieval Mission, lines 15-19: “…the Administrator SHALL NOT  fund the development of an asteroid retrieval mission to send a robotic spacecraft to a near-Earth asteroid for rendezvous, retrieval, and redirection of that asteroid to lunar orbit for exploration by astronauts.” Looks like EM-2 will need to be assigned a different mission because Congress is actually forbidding the expenditure of funds for the asteroid retrieval to lunar orbit effort.

Paragraph 6 speaks of the return to the moon’s surface as being a cancelled mission, deleted when CxP was cancelled. It is true that President Obama cancelled CxP but too many people forget that CxP was not National Policy. It was only a tool designed by Administrator Griffin to accomplish the goals laid out in the National Policy document – the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE), but that POLICY itself was never cancelled. So many on this site have stated that the VSE is no longer the National Policy, and I have argued to the contrary on several occasions. National Policy does not change with Administrations unless deliberate steps are taken to explicitly change it. Just because a clueless POTUS and Administrator choose to ignore policy does not of itself invalidate that policy. The VSE is STILL the National Policy, the goals of the VSE are still valid and Congress is making sure that we all know that. The POLICY that will guide this nation into deep space is the VSE, and will remain so unless it is specifically cancelled, which has never been done. I refer you all to the bill to Title II – Human Space Flight; Subtitle A – Exploration, Section 201 Space Exploration Policy, which begins on page 9 of the document at line 11. I refer specifically to Subsection (b) which begins on page 10 at line 13 “Policy “. There the bill reiterates – in accordance with the VSE - that American astronauts will be going to lunar orbit, the SURFACE of the moon, the surface of Mars – and beyond. This (b) introduces (c) which now refers specifically to the wording of the National Policy, the VSE, to revise its wording, beginning on line 18 of page 10. This rewording of portions of the VSE continues uninterrupted thru to line 10 of page 12, altogether 2 full pages reaffirming that the VSE is still National Policy and updating its wording to properly include the surface of Mars specifically.

Beginning with paragraph 13 and continuing thru paragraph 18 Chris writes about the current Administrator and his opposition to missions to the lunar surface. He mentions in paragraph 13 that the administrator stated that “any re-direction” to the lunar surface would send us back to square 1. Well there are those of us on this site that believe with all our beings that going back to square 1 would be a giant step forward from what we have been forced to swallow for the past 5 1/2 years. Chris goes on to say that it now appears that the very re-direction the administrator feared is happening, and I for one heartily applaud. But the bill gives the administrator 1 year from the date of its passage to provide the appropriate house and senate committees with a document describing in detail how NASA will execute the goals laid out in the bill. I fully expect the administrator to use that year to do what he does so well, and has demonstrated to the great ilk of many in Congress – stall. To that I say that if he is unwilling to get with the program then he should just quit. My advice to him is to “Lead, Follow or Get Out Of The Way”. I have spoken to several in the Senate who regret their vote to confirm him and fervently wish that he would just quit.

Chris refers, beginning in the article paragraph 23 thru paragraph 31, to including Phobos on the roadmap to the Martian surface. I have always believed that Phobos should be the stopover point to the Martian surface, even being the object of several crewed missions before attempting to drop all the way down to Mars. I applaud the language in the bill which puts Phobos on that path. It demonstrates some clear heads doing what heads are supposed to do: think

A few other observations, exclusively from the bill now:
On page 3, under Section 2, “Definition”, I REALLY  like that the Congress steps up and begins to do away with that silly moniker “MPCV”, and once again puts the spacecraft’s real name, ORION,  front and center. Beginning with the paragraph found on line 1 of page 4, nowhere in the entire bill is “MPCV” ever used again. Whenever the spacecraft is discussed, it is always “Orion”. Thank you!

On page 13 beginning on line 6, “Use of Non-United States Human Space Flight Transportation Capabilities, and (1) “In General”, it states ”NASA may NOT obtain non-United States human spaceflight capabilities unless no domestic commercial provider is available to provide such capability. Hmmmm. No mention is made of “bartering” with the ESA for capability or hardware. So what is to become of the ESA-provided Service Module for Orion? This portion of the bill appears to forbid NASA from having ESA provide the SM for Orion. Ok Lockheed, gear it back up. Looks to me like you no longer have any European competition for Orion’s SM. It’s got to be designed and built in the United States. (Yea!)

Ok, now Congress has actually provided, in (potential) law, the Deadline Date by which an American crew has been safely delivered to the ISS aboard a Commercial Spacecraft – The date is December  31, 2017. This is found on page 27 under Section 214 Flight Readiness Demonstration Deadline, (a) In General, subsection (2) Definition, on line 17. We have all seen/heard this date before, but not enshrined in law.

All in all I like this bill, and I really like the article that Chris wrote based on it. Kudos to both Chris and the Legislative Staff that put this together. Next step – put the draft up for vote and get it passed, then provide the companion Appropriations Bill so that we can finally get underway (again). 

[Rocket Science]

We already have a mission and it’s called “Mission to Planet Earth”. All vehicles are currently at locations of interest. Thus we can all declare it a success and mission accomplished... Think about it...

[yg1968]

On page 13 beginning on line 6, “Use of Non-United States Human Space Flight Transportation Capabilities, and (1) “In General”, it states ”NASA may NOT obtain non-United States human spaceflight capabilities unless no domestic commercial provider is available to provide such capability. Hmmmm. No mention is made of “bartering” with the ESA for capability or hardware. So what is to become of the ESA-provided Service Module for Orion? This portion of the bill appears to forbid NASA from having ESA provide the SM for Orion. Ok Lockheed, gear it back up. Looks to me like you no longer have any European competition for Orion’s SM. It’s got to be designed and built in the United States. (Yea!)

This provision only means that domestic commercial capabilities (i.e., commercial crew) must be used as opposed to using Soyuz.

As far as this bill being passed, the Democrats in the committee called the bill DOA in the Senate.

[Rocket Science]

Archived webcast is up...

http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-space-hearing-nasa-authorization-act-2013

[yg1968]

Here is the archived webcast on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6x16Phr2h4&feature=youtu.be

[Lobo]

This provision only means that domestic commercial capabilities (i.e., commercial crew) must be used as opposed to using Soyuz.

As far as this bill being passed, the Democrats in the committee called the bill DOA in the Senate.

That certainly wouldn't surprise me as the Senate hasn't done much in the way of passing legislation over the past few years...not even a federal budget.  But I certainly hope that's not the case this time.  Otherwise we'll probably have another 3-4 years of foot dragging, stalling, and lack of direction at NASA. 

I think it's like the stock market.  The Markets love good news.  They can deal with bad news given some time.  But uncertainty is usually what really causes things to go into the ditch.  We could do without the uncertainty at NASA they've had over the past 4-5 years.

[spectre9]

Space technology gives $200m to Commercial Crew.

Who was it that said "technology programs come with a big CUT ME tag written all over them"?

It's so true.

[Prober]

On page 13 beginning on line 6, “Use of Non-United States Human Space Flight Transportation Capabilities, and (1) “In General”, it states ”NASA may NOT obtain non-United States human spaceflight capabilities unless no domestic commercial provider is available to provide such capability. Hmmmm. No mention is made of “bartering” with the ESA for capability or hardware. So what is to become of the ESA-provided Service Module for Orion? This portion of the bill appears to forbid NASA from having ESA provide the SM for Orion. Ok Lockheed, gear it back up. Looks to me like you no longer have any European competition for Orion’s SM. It’s got to be designed and built in the United States. (Yea!)

This provision only means that domestic commercial capabilities (i.e., commercial crew) must be used as opposed to using Soyuz.

As far as this bill being passed, the Democrats in the committee called the bill DOA in the Senate.

Does seem that this bill might be a must read.   From the meeting Congress was getting some real answers, and even for some asking real questions.
 
This just might get ugly.   

[clongton]

On page 13 beginning on line 6, “Use of Non-United States Human Space Flight Transportation Capabilities, and (1) “In General”, it states ”NASA may NOT obtain non-United States human spaceflight capabilities unless no domestic commercial provider is available to provide such capability. Hmmmm. No mention is made of “bartering” with the ESA for capability or hardware. So what is to become of the ESA-provided Service Module for Orion? This portion of the bill appears to forbid NASA from having ESA provide the SM for Orion. Ok Lockheed, gear it back up. Looks to me like you no longer have any European competition for Orion’s SM. It’s got to be designed and built in the United States. (Yea!)

This provision only means that domestic commercial capabilities (i.e., commercial crew) must be used as opposed to using Soyuz.

Wrong

[Galactic Penguin SST]

On page 13 beginning on line 6, “Use of Non-United States Human Space Flight Transportation Capabilities, and (1) “In General”, it states ”NASA may NOT obtain non-United States human spaceflight capabilities unless no domestic commercial provider is available to provide such capability. Hmmmm. No mention is made of “bartering” with the ESA for capability or hardware. So what is to become of the ESA-provided Service Module for Orion? This portion of the bill appears to forbid NASA from having ESA provide the SM for Orion. Ok Lockheed, gear it back up. Looks to me like you no longer have any European competition for Orion’s SM. It’s got to be designed and built in the United States. (Yea!)

This provision only means that domestic commercial capabilities (i.e., commercial crew) must be used as opposed to using Soyuz.

Wrong

Is that your own interpretation or information from some other informed sources?

[riv3026]

I have the space program for a very long time and as much I support NASA, the current architecture isnt good to be cost effective to meet the overall goals for lunar and mars exploration.

In my opinion, based on commercial and nasa briefings, the most cost effective approac is this:
1. Cancel Orion in support of having just commercial companies providing transportation to eart orbit to the following destinations
- International Space Station or to other orbital destinaions such as the Bigelow Alpa Station
- A Nautilus-X class vehicle to provide beyond earth orbit destnations such as Geo-synchronous orbit, lunar orbit, EML destinations and interplanetary destinations. 

2. The arguments for each point is by canclling the orion, it eliminates a duplication of spacecraft already being developed by commercial firms. The Orion is not reusable in a sense of total reusability which incurs increase costs. The Dragon, Dreamchaser or CST-100 can do the same job in providing transportation at a lower cost
3. A Nautilus-X class type vessel provides a permanent in-space transportation system allowing for multiple destinaions. An SAA can be done with Bigelow to provide information what it will take to develop this ship

The costs for just using commercial transportation to get our astronauts into space will be reduce due to continue competion not just to the I S S, but to other orbital destinations. The Nautilus-X will receive the astronaut crew and depending on destnation will have an appropriate propulsion module attached for there beyond low earth orbit destination.
4. The Ares V could of been used to send a variety of payloads to include nuclear powered probes, which the SLS can now fulfill. The SLS should be used for NASA critical payloads

NASA needs to work with the commercial entities to help them as they have done successfully with the commercial cargo contract

[Rocket Science]

I have the space program for a very long time and as much I support NASA, the current architecture isnt good to be cost effective to meet the overall goals for lunar and mars exploration.

In my opinion, based on commercial and nasa briefings, the most cost effective approac is this:
1. Cancel Orion in support of having just commercial companies providing transportation to eart orbit to the following destinations
- International Space Station or to other orbital destinaions such as the Bigelow Alpa Station
- A Nautilus-X class vehicle to provide beyond earth orbit destnations such as Geo-synchronous orbit, lunar orbit, EML destinations and interplanetary destinations. 

2. The arguments for each point is by canclling the orion, it eliminates a duplication of spacecraft already being developed by commercial firms. The Orion is not reusable in a sense of total reusability which incurs increase costs. The Dragon, Dreamchaser or CST-100 can do the same job in providing transportation at a lower cost
3. A Nautilus-X class type vessel provides a permanent in-space transportation system allowing for multiple destinaions. An SAA can be done with Bigelow to provide information what it will take to develop this ship

The costs for just using commercial transportation to get our astronauts into space will be reduce due to continue competion not just to the I S S, but to other orbital destinations. The Nautilus-X will receive the astronaut crew and depending on destnation will have an appropriate propulsion module attached for there beyond low earth orbit destination.
4. The Ares V could of been used to send a variety of payloads to include nuclear powered probes, which the SLS can now fulfill. The SLS should be used for NASA critical payloads

NASA needs to work with the commercial entities to help them as they have done successfully with the commercial cargo contract

Welcome to the forum!  All good ideas, but unfortunately there is a disconnect between what NASA is capable of doing and what Congress will allow them to do...

[spectre9]

I didn't even notice the huge slash to SLS until Brooks gets really grumpy about it.

This administration is determined to kill SLS.

The whole budget is a joke. NASA can't do anything with so many cuts and no cancellations.

[jongoff]

Unless I missed it, I'm surprised that nobody has been discussing Section 707 and Section 711...

Requiring 50% cost sharing for all funded SAAs? Combined with a $50M cap, and requiring reports to Congress every 90 days? Are they that afraid that Orion will look bad when Commercial Crew companies beat them to manned flight, even though they have a tiny fraction of Orion's budget?

Making it so that the Deputy Administrator can only serve in lieu of the Administrator (if he steps down) for 45 days at which time the position would shift to the Associate Administrator?

~Jon

[spectre9]

This is the most fantasy I've ever seen proposed in one bill.

1.2b for Orion while nearly everything is getting a big cut?

What gives?

This is most certainly DOA.

[catdlr]

NASA Authorization Act of 2013, House Subcommittee on Space, June 19, 2013

Published on Jun 19, 2013
On June 19, 2013, the House Subcommittee on Space held a hearing to review a discussion draft of the NASA Authorization Act of 2013.

Invited witnesses were:

Dr. Steven W. Squyres
Goldwin Smith Professor of Astronomy, Cornell University

Mr. A. Thomas Young
Former Executive Vice President
Lockheed Martin Corporation

The event was webcast live and is in the public domain.

Visit our web site at www.spaceksc.com. We're on Twitter at @spacekscblog.

[joek]

Unless I missed it, I'm surprised that nobody has been discussing Section 707 and Section 711...

Requiring 50% cost sharing for all funded SAAs? Combined with a $50M cap, and requiring reports to Congress every 90 days? Are they that afraid that Orion will look bad when Commercial Crew companies beat them to manned flight, even though they have a tiny fraction of Orion's budget?

Making it so that the Deputy Administrator can only serve in lieu of the Administrator (if he steps down) for 45 days at which time the position would shift to the Associate Administrator?

Thanks; I missed that $50M cap.

The reporting period appears to be annual, "Not later than 90 days after the end of each fiscal year..." which doesn't seem unreasonable.  However the transparency requirements might cause some heartburn.  However some wiggle room there as "with appropriate redactions for proprietary, sensitive, or classified information".

The funded SAA cost sharing requirement appears to provide a bit of latitude in that, "To the extent that the Administrator determines practicable, the funds provided by the Government under a Space Act Agreement shall bit exceed the total amount provided by other parties to the Space Act Agreement."

[QuantumG]

They're doing the 90 day reports already.. in fact, isn't 60 day reports?

[joek]

They're doing the 90 day reports already.. in fact, isn't 60 day reports?

If you're referring to the CCDev-CCiCap-etc reports... Those don't provide the level of transparency the new legislation would require, nor do those reports cover all SAA's.

[Alpha Control]

This is the most fantasy I've ever seen proposed in one bill.

1.2b for Orion while nearly everything is getting a big cut?

What gives?

This is most certainly DOA.

It most certainly is not.  This is an official legislative document produced by a U.S. House Subcommittee. Like all proposed legislation, it will go through the complex bicameral process of hearings and votes.

Those in Congress who oppose a piece of legislation may often say something is "dead on arrival" in another chamber or in a higher committee, to score political points and/or to sway colleagues.  It's all part of the process. Its fate will be determined at the end of the process, by the support (or lack of it) that the bill garners along the way.

[Lobo]

Making it so that the Deputy Administrator can only serve in lieu of the Administrator (if he steps down) for 45 days at which time the position would shift to the Associate Administrator?

~Jon

We can hope...

[john smith 19]

A general question for all you dedicated NASA & Congress watchers.

In the video the "Distinguished Gentleman" from Alabama District 5 talks about how the draft requires NASA to demonstrate HSF capability by 2017 and mentions that SLS only gets $1.45Bn and quotes people like Mike Griffin as saying it needs $1.8Bn.

Has he (accidently) confused SLS with Orion? AFAIK SLS is not due to fly before 2024.

What have I missed?

[spectre9]

MSFC should speak for themselves.

If SLS is being short changed they should speak up.

They shouldn't rely on Alabama congressmen and Griffin to protect SLS funding.

If they don't want it cancelled they need to fight.

[Rocket Science]

MSFC should speak for themselves.

If SLS is being short changed they should speak up.

They shouldn't rely on Alabama congressmen and Griffin to protect SLS funding.

If they don't want it cancelled they need to fight.

In the “representative form” of government that we have here in the U.S. it is those with field centers that unusually speak in favor of monies being spent in their district. This is just one of the many quirks in out imperfect democracy where spaceflight is not viewed as a benefit to the nation as a whole but just a select few.
 
This is another disconnect where the administrator views spaceflight and how is good for the nation, where those representatives could care less about the other states and just pay lip service to it...

This is nothing new as it has been like this from the birth of the nation, which is one the many reasons nothing gets done and let’s not even begin to get into partisan politics...

[MP99]

A general question for all you dedicated NASA & Congress watchers.

In the video the "Distinguished Gentleman" from Alabama District 5 talks about how the draft requires NASA to demonstrate HSF capability by 2017 and mentions that SLS only gets $1.45Bn and quotes people like Mike Griffin as saying it needs $1.8Bn.

Has he (accidently) confused SLS with Orion? AFAIK SLS is not due to fly before 2024.

What have I missed?

No, 2017 uncrewed, 2021 crewed.

Cheers, Martin

[clongton]

Unless I missed it, I'm surprised that nobody has been discussing Section 707 and Section 711...

Requiring 50% cost sharing for all funded SAAs? Combined with a $50M cap, and requiring reports to Congress every 90 days? Are they that afraid that Orion will look bad when Commercial Crew companies beat them to manned flight, even though they have a tiny fraction of Orion's budget?

Making it so that the Deputy Administrator can only serve in lieu of the Administrator (if he steps down) for 45 days at which time the position would shift to the Associate Administrator?

~Jon

Here are the changes to Section 711 and the current organization structure. There are 3 changes, all significant.

1. The Administrator will now have a term of 6 years, separating the position from the Presidential election cycle and providing continuity from Administration to Administration. The Administrator’s term will realign with the presidential election every 3rd Presidential election, or 12 years. I would have preferred a term of 5 years in lieu of 6, to further separate these 2 offices by even more time – 4 Presidential cycles and 20 years. That would better unlink the Administrator from the political wiles of a new President.
 
2. The Deputy Administrator's role becomes tightly bound to the Administrator, and may replace the Administrator for only 45 days, after which the Associate Administrator will fill the remainder of the Administrator's term until the Senate replaces that person. This effectively makes the Deputy the Administrator's assistant only so long as the Administrator continues in office, after which it appears this person is out of a job. No expectation of succession is entertained. It would also appear that the term of office of the Deputy Administrator is to remain at 4 years, requiring reappointment with every new President. The current Associate Administrator is Robert Lightfoot so if Bolden should resign then 45 days later he would be the new NASA Administrator. Garver would serve simply as a bridge from one Administrator to another and then leave.

3. By striking "from civilian life", the new wording will now allow both the Administrator and the Deputy Administrator to be selected from the ranks of the military. What is not made clear is whether or not this person will need to suspend their military career for the term that they are heading this Civilian agency. A little clarity should be added on that point.

[yg1968]

Unless I missed it, I'm surprised that nobody has been discussing Section 707 and Section 711...

Requiring 50% cost sharing for all funded SAAs? Combined with a $50M cap, and requiring reports to Congress every 90 days? Are they that afraid that Orion will look bad when Commercial Crew companies beat them to manned flight, even though they have a tiny fraction of Orion's budget?

Making it so that the Deputy Administrator can only serve in lieu of the Administrator (if he steps down) for 45 days at which time the position would shift to the Associate Administrator?

~Jon

Hopefully, both of these provisions will not survive in the final legislation. Both of these provisions would be reason enough to veto this bill.

[ChileVerde]

Has he (accidently) confused SLS with Orion? AFAIK SLS is not due to fly before 2024.

The last official words on SLS schedule came in November and may be OBE:

2017 -- uncrewed circumlunar
2021 -- crewed lunar orbital
2023 -- crewed, no mission specified
2025 -- crewed, no mission specified
2029 -- first cargo mission, no payload specified

It's unclear whether there was to be a 2027 crewed launch. Note that the above schedule is pre-ARM but presumably took into account the then-professed intent to visit a NEA by 2025.

[clongton]

Unless I missed it, I'm surprised that nobody has been discussing Section 707 and Section 711...

Requiring 50% cost sharing for all funded SAAs? Combined with a $50M cap, and requiring reports to Congress every 90 days? Are they that afraid that Orion will look bad when Commercial Crew companies beat them to manned flight, even though they have a tiny fraction of Orion's budget?

Making it so that the Deputy Administrator can only serve in lieu of the Administrator (if he steps down) for 45 days at which time the position would shift to the Associate Administrator?

~Jon

Hopefully, both of these provisions will not survive in the final legislation. Both of these provisions would be reason enough to veto this bill.

Actually I believe the changes to Section 711 are good. It is a very real attempt to limit political influence.

[yg1968]

Unless I missed it, I'm surprised that nobody has been discussing Section 707 and Section 711...

Requiring 50% cost sharing for all funded SAAs? Combined with a $50M cap, and requiring reports to Congress every 90 days? Are they that afraid that Orion will look bad when Commercial Crew companies beat them to manned flight, even though they have a tiny fraction of Orion's budget?

Making it so that the Deputy Administrator can only serve in lieu of the Administrator (if he steps down) for 45 days at which time the position would shift to the Associate Administrator?

~Jon

Hopefully, both of these provisions will not survive in the final legislation. Both of these provisions would be reason enough to veto this bill.

Actually I believe the changes to Section 711 are good. It is a very real attempt to limit political influence.

It's an attempt to reduce the President's powers but not political influence in general.

[yg1968]

Here is a very good article that summarizes the hearing:
Summary of the hearing

[newpylong]

MSFC should speak for themselves.

If SLS is being short changed they should speak up.

They shouldn't rely on Alabama congressmen and Griffin to protect SLS funding.

If they don't want it cancelled they need to fight.

Uh, this is what a budget request is for, and they requested 1.8 Billion dollars. You don't think Marshall is fighting?

[woods170]

Here are the changes to Section 711 and the current organization structure. There are 3 changes, all significant.

1. The Administrator will now have a term of 6 years, separating the position from the Presidential election cycle and providing continuity from Administration to Administration. The Administrator’s term will realign with the presidential election every 3rd Presidential election, or 12 years. I would have preferred a term of 5 years in lieu of 6, to further separate these 2 offices by even more time – 4 Presidential cycles and 20 years. That would better unlink the Administrator from the political wiles of a new President.

With all due respect Chuck, but I disagree.
The direct boss of the Administrator is still the president of the USA. This could lead to having an administrator being faced with the situation that on behest of a new president the administrator has to undo the very work he (or she) had been steering the previous four years.

Say, for example that this legislation was in effect during the times of Griffin. He spent four years fighting real hard for Constellation under Bush Jr. Then comes in Obama, and Griffin still had two years to go in his term. Obama orders Griffin to shut down Constellation. In this example either he (Griffin) would have followed the presidents order and shut down his 'baby' project, OR, he would have resigned, and the deputy administrator or associate administrator would have had to shut down Constellation. The result is still the same. Constellation is terminated.
End of example.

This 'unlinking' of the NASA administrator from the wiles of the current president is a nice idea, but it exists on paper only. Reality will turn out to be very different.

[woods170]

Unless I missed it, I'm surprised that nobody has been discussing Section 707 and Section 711...

Requiring 50% cost sharing for all funded SAAs? Combined with a $50M cap, and requiring reports to Congress every 90 days? Are they that afraid that Orion will look bad when Commercial Crew companies beat them to manned flight, even though they have a tiny fraction of Orion's budget?

Making it so that the Deputy Administrator can only serve in lieu of the Administrator (if he steps down) for 45 days at which time the position would shift to the Associate Administrator?

~Jon

Hopefully, both of these provisions will not survive in the final legislation. Both of these provisions would be reason enough to veto this bill.

Actually I believe the changes to Section 711 are good. It is a very real attempt to limit political influence.

Its a very real attempt to limit influence from the president and increase influence from Congress. Overall section 711 still translates into a great deal of political influence.

[muomega0]

I wonder whether the House might be cajoled into formally explaining the basis for the "finding" in Title II, Sec. 203:

"(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that the Space Launch System is the most practical approach to reaching the Moon, Mars, and beyond, and reaffirms the policy and minimum capability requirements contained in such section."

The entire Act is comical, the result of the worse space policy ever,  with the goal of maintaining shuttle product lines at the expense of everything else.  The business case of HLV does not close versus a depot centric architecture.

So when you have nothing to go on, you write things into law, then you cite the law over and over and over again, with the only justification of the POR based on a flawed 60 day study a decade ago or a flawed policy.  Here is one of many examples of simply writing into law the unjustifiable solution/destination (except a strategy without funding is not a strategy).

I refer you all to the bill to Title II – Human Space Flight; Subtitle A – Exploration, Section 201 Space Exploration Policy, which begins on page 9 of the document at line 11. I refer specifically to Subsection (b) which begins on page 10 at line 13 “Policy “. There the bill reiterates – in accordance with the VSE - that American astronauts will be going to lunar orbit, the SURFACE of the moon, the surface of Mars – and beyond. This (b) introduces (c) which now refers specifically to the wording of the National Policy, the VSE, to revise its wording, beginning on line 18 of page 10. This rewording of portions of the VSE continues uninterrupted thru to line 10 of page 12, altogether 2 full pages reaffirming that the VSE is still National Policy and updating its wording to properly include the surface of Mars specifically.

Unfortunately, there were 3 flaws in the VSE

So how does Congress fix these circles?  "Haven't we been through this before?" 

---

Here are the changes to Section 711 and the current organization structure. There are 3 changes, all significant.

1. The Administrator will now have a term of 6 years, separating the position from the Presidential election cycle and providing continuity from Administration to Administration. The Administrator’s term will realign with the presidential election every 3rd Presidential election, or 12 years. I would have preferred a term of 5 years in lieu of 6, to further separate these 2 offices by even more time – 4 Presidential cycles and 20 years. That would better unlink the Administrator from the political wiles of a new President.

With all due respect Chuck, but I disagree.
The direct boss of the Administrator is still the president of the USA. This could lead to having an administrator being faced with the situation that on behest of a new president the administrator has to undo the very work he (or she) had been steering the previous four years.

Say, for example that this legislation was in effect during the times of Griffin. He spent four years fighting real hard for Constellation under Bush Jr. Then comes in Obama, and Griffin still had two years to go in his term. Obama orders Griffin to shut down Constellation. In this example either he (Griffin) would have followed the presidents order and shut down his 'baby' project, OR, he would have resigned, and the deputy administrator or associate administrator would have had to shut down Constellation. The result is still the same. Constellation is terminated.
End of example.

This 'unlinking' of the NASA administrator from the wiles of the current president is a nice idea, but it exists on paper only. Reality will turn out to be very different.

why resign?...President says shutdown constellation and Griffin says no with two years left to go, citing the (flawed) 60 day study.  President nominates a new admin...two years later...and the appointment is stalled...

The proposed 6 year term is simply a way for certain members of Congress to have the admin do all the dirty work, and will simply stall appointment of an admin who does not support their POV.

I worry that approval will be difficult and implementation is subject to too many unintended consequences

is quite the understatement.

---

Unless I missed it, I'm surprised that nobody has been discussing Section 707 and Section 711...

Requiring 50% cost sharing for all funded SAAs? Combined with a $50M cap, and requiring reports to Congress every 90 days? Are they that afraid that Orion will look bad when Commercial Crew companies beat them to manned flight, even though they have a tiny fraction of Orion's budget

~Jon

Hopefully, both of these provisions will not survive in the final legislation. Both of these provisions would be reason enough to veto this bill.

Actually I believe the changes to Section 711 are good. It is a very real attempt to limit political influence.

Its a very real attempt to limit influence from the president and increase influence from Congress. Overall section 711 still translates into a great deal of political influence.

Requiring cost share will shutdown many smaller, non-traditional players-that is its intent.  IOW, no worries for the sole source contracts and let the rest seek out venture capital for a payback that may take decades.  Good Luck with that! 

[Prober]

Here is a very good article that summarizes the hearing:
Summary of the hearing

wow, some interesting stuff, kill the asteroid mission.  But this is also interesting.
 
NASA to meet a “flight readiness demonstration deadline” of December 31, 2017, for at least one commercial crew system. “This deadline is not negotiable,” Palazzo said. “NASA must do whatever is necessary in its acquisition model to meet this deadline, even if that means radically altering their current plans.”

[john smith 19]

No, 2017 uncrewed, 2021 crewed.

Cheers, Martin

Noted. Thank you.

[spectre9]

You can't help NASA by shuffling things around.

You need a big cancellation.

Giving SLS a $400m cut makes it as good as dead.

It might as well just go allowing Earth/Planetary science and Technololgy development to get the money.

ULA has finally given out their new numbers for DIV-H and to me it doesn't look that bad. Falcon Heavy is only just around the corner too.

Rohrabacher was right in saying that SLS sucks the money away from everything else.

SLS is cool but they can't even afford the upper stage to meet the 130mt requirement as it is.

I'm not saying kill SLS, I'm saying it's unaffordable given the top line budget that is authorized. If the top line budget had any chance of being better then by all means save it but I'm beyond hope.

Squyres refused to answer to question "If we start now how long until we can get to Mars?" and instead answered by saying "Under the current budget?" before not saying a word and handing over the question to young to give the answer he didn't want to say.

"NEVER"

If this is the case then what good is SLS?

No good at all.

In conclusion SLS is a boondoggle. This administration has done all they could to starve it to death and it's on it's last legs and should just be put out of it's misery now to avoid further suffering.

[john smith 19]

You can't help NASA by shuffling things around.

You need a big cancellation.

Giving SLS a $400m cut makes it as good as dead.

This will never happen. Congress will continue to support the Utah casting shop for until it decides not to. 

[spectre9]

Alabama and Utah are less influential states now.

They can't get enough support to fully fund the whole thing.

MSFC should help ATK build Liberty style rockets to launch unmanned payloads if they must have some sort of program to keep them happy.

At least building the A1US gives J-2X some purpose.

[QuantumG]

NASA to meet a “flight readiness demonstration deadline” of December 31, 2017, for at least one commercial crew system. “This deadline is not negotiable,” Palazzo said. “NASA must do whatever is necessary in its acquisition model to meet this deadline, even if that means radically altering their current plans.”

I wonder if the good members of the House understand just how much power they're handing NASA with that.

[Prober]

NASA to meet a “flight readiness demonstration deadline” of December 31, 2017, for at least one commercial crew system. “This deadline is not negotiable,” Palazzo said. “NASA must do whatever is necessary in its acquisition model to meet this deadline, even if that means radically altering their current plans.”

I wonder if the good members of the House understand just how much power they're handing NASA with that.

that slices both ways....if NASA can't manage then Congress Will.

[QuantumG]

that slices both ways....if NASA can't manage then Congress Will.

Yeah, but that's what Congress is supposed to do.

[yg1968]

Senate Nelson shares his views on the House bill:

Nelson shares his views -Article

He says to expect a Senate bill in mid-July or sooner.

[newpylong]

What we have a first draft of a House article, which won't pass as is.

No, SLS will get the 1.8 Billion requested and will proceed. Development appears to be advancing well.

You can't help NASA by shuffling things around.

You need a big cancellation.

Giving SLS a $400m cut makes it as good as dead.

It might as well just go allowing Earth/Planetary science and Technololgy development to get the money.

ULA has finally given out their new numbers for DIV-H and to me it doesn't look that bad. Falcon Heavy is only just around the corner too.

Rohrabacher was right in saying that SLS sucks the money away from everything else.

SLS is cool but they can't even afford the upper stage to meet the 130mt requirement as it is.

I'm not saying kill SLS, I'm saying it's unaffordable given the top line budget that is authorized. If the top line budget had any chance of being better then by all means save it but I'm beyond hope.

Squyres refused to answer to question "If we start now how long until we can get to Mars?" and instead answered by saying "Under the current budget?" before not saying a word and handing over the question to young to give the answer he didn't want to say.

"NEVER"

If this is the case then what good is SLS?

No good at all.

In conclusion SLS is a boondoggle. This administration has done all they could to starve it to death and it's on it's last legs and should just be put out of it's misery now to avoid further suffering.

[spectre9]

Bill Nelson says $16.8b would run NASA into a ditch.

Well how much better can he do?

He makes it sound like he has a couple billion up his sleeve. In reality that's about all NASA's ever going to get.

[Prober]

Bill Nelson says $16.8b would run NASA into a ditch.

Well how much better can he do?

He makes it sound like he has a couple billion up his sleeve. In reality that's about all NASA's ever going to get.

“What we’re going to try to mark up is a balanced program,” he said, citing progress in both commercial crew development and the Space Launch System and Orion programs, as well as science programs, including the James Webb Space Telescope.
 
JWST was pointed out to the mangers over budget and behind again. Don't think any corrective fixes have come out of the admin.  This is balanced? 

[CNYMike]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/06/nasa-act-pushes-moon-mars-priority/

Thank you for posting this article. 

There's a scene in the classic Star Trek episode "Amok Time" where Mr. Chekov is complaining about all the course changes that have been ordered, first towards Vulcan and then away for it, back and forth, and are now headed away from Vulcan.  And Mr. Sulu says, "Maybe you should plot a course for Vulcan just in case."

I know how Mr. Checkov feels.  Moon, not-Moon, now maybe fight over Moon or not-Moon ... the whole thing has just been emotionally draining. 

[JohnFornaro]

Senate Nelson shares his views on the House bill:

Nelson shares his views -Article

He says to expect a Senate bill in mid-July or sooner.

Thanks for that tidbit from Mr. Nelson.

I want you to get off your duff and stop playing ‘nicey nicey’ with these people who want to whack NASA because they’re wedded to an ideology that doesn’t make sense...

Yeah, lower taxes, restrained spending, the rule of law, enforced immigration law are so troublesome. I can see why the Senator is troubled. "Wanna fight? Let's party!" (quoting an Arnold character)

Neither political party is even attempting to accomplish something with our government, much less with NASA.  Mr. Nelson is not really part of the solution, and neither is Mr. Obama.

One would think that if a politician asserted that a NASA budget of $16.8B would run NASA into a ditch, then one would hope that the same politician would put a number on a budget which would not do so.

They all continue to fight only for the sake of fighting.

[spectre9]

The fact is JWST is a much more deserving program than SLS.

Maryland trumps Alabama.

One can't kill the other. They're in a mutual stand off. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours kind of thing.

So they went after planetary science and now they're going after Earth science.

What's next? Heliophysics I reckon. Goodbye Living With A Star.

[JohnFornaro]

Goodbye Living With A Star.

What!!!!

They're getting rid of the Sun?  Can they do that?

[mlindner]

Rohrabacher really doesn't have a clue. Thinks Atlas and Delta are alternatives to SLS. Thinks Mars Inspiration is all we need for Mars.

Actually this is one of the few times I've agreed with what he's said (other than the atlas/delta part). SLS is too expensive for what it does. He even mentioned SpaceX.

[Proponent]

So what is the upshot of all of this?

After NASA AA Robert Lightfoot came out in support of the asteroid heist, I was pretty sure it would go ahead.  After all, as the previous director of MSFC, he's a big SLS supporter, and I'd have thought SLS's many supporters on the congressional space committees would naturally side with him.  I was quite surprised, then, that House members who've made clear that SLS is their top priority came out against the heist, which seems to be the only viable, possibly affordable mission for SLS that anybody's been able to come up with in the nearly three years it's been in the works.

So, I'm wondering why they're opposed to the heist.  What seems most likely to me is that they actually believe(d) that SLS-based human lunar missions were possible in the foreseeable future without a big budget boost.  I would then go on to guess that they're now quietly being taught the facts of life and will drop their opposition to the heist by the time the final bill is completed.  Chris's hints that NASA's about to announce changes to EM-1 to make it a dry run for the heist are consistent with this.

Or could it be that they believe SLS can carry on for the time being with nothing more concrete than a circumlunar EM-2 as a goal?  This seems improbable.

In principle, it could be they expect NASA's budget soon to rise to a level commensurate with SLS-based lunar exploration, but I really doubt it.

Others' thoughts?

[Proponent]

... this is also interesting.
 
NASA to meet a “flight readiness demonstration deadline” of December 31, 2017, for at least one commercial crew system. “This deadline is not negotiable,” Palazzo said. “NASA must do whatever is necessary in its acquisition model to meet this deadline, even if that means radically altering their current plans.”

To me that sounds like a demand to down-select to a single provider.

[JohnFornaro]

So what is the upshot of all of this?

After NASA AA Robert Lightfoot came out in support of the asteroid heist, I was pretty sure it would go ahead.

It's a free country and all, sure.  But Mr. Lightfoot has to state publicly the opinions he is instructed to state.  You can't have a functioning Federal bureacracy if the AA's are publicly disagreeing with Presidential directives.

So, I'm wondering why they're opposed to the heist.

Because it is incompletely scoped, improperly costed, and has no pragmatic utility.

Other than that, no real reason.

[ChileVerde]

So, I'm wondering why they're opposed to the heist.

Because it is incompletely scoped, improperly costed, and has no pragmatic utility.

Other than that, no real reason.

But, to adduce another Proponent quote,

...the heist, which seems to be the only viable, possibly affordable mission for SLS that anybody's been able to come up with in the nearly three years it's been in the works.

Which, IMO, pretty accurately sums up the current situation.  Opposition to the heist, for the reasons you list, might be entirely valid, but the only known alternative to ARM is an indefinite series of Apollo 8 Redux non-missions, maybe leavened with few-day visits to EML points, also of questionable utility.

As we used to say, "de Guatemala a Guatepeor."

[JohnFornaro]

So, I'm wondering why they're opposed to the heist.

Because it is incompletely scoped, improperly costed, and has no pragmatic utility.

Other than that, no real reason.

But, to adduce another Proponent quote,

...the heist, which seems to be the only viable, possibly affordable mission for SLS that anybody's been able to come up with in the nearly three years it's been in the works.

Which, IMO, pretty accurately sums up the current situation.  Opposition to the heist, for the reasons you list, might be entirely valid, but the only known alternative to ARM is an indefinite series of Apollo 8 Redux non-missions, maybe leavened with few-day visits to EML points, also of questionable utility.

As we used to say, "de Guatemala a Guatepeor."

The heist is not the only viable, possibly affordable mission for SLS.   They provided the only mission that the President asked for.  Worse, since it is improperly scoped, and carries a deliberately scrubbed price, the heist is not even possibly affordable.

Even worse, from this armchair, they should be lassoing it, not bagging it.

And "hasta lumbago" to you too.

[ChileVerde]

The heist is not the only viable, possibly affordable mission for SLS.   

Could you remind us what those viable, possibly affordable missions are, please? Where "affordable" means, mas o menos more or less, "fitting within a flat budget at the current level."

Me, I'd love it if an EML1/2 station (aka "gateway") used as a site to develop a DSH fell within that category, but NASA doesn't seem to think it does.

P.S.: I should add that I'm not totally against the heist, SLS/Orion aside.  Pushing electric propulsion technologies seems an excellent thing to do, and bringing the occasional small asteroid back to study probably has some scientific merit if can be done without a big hit to the science budget.

[JohnFornaro]

Could you remind us what those viable, possibly affordable missions are, please?

Well.

You're asking some hombre guy to provide a properly scoped, accurately costed multi-billion dollar manned space program?  When the experts are not able to do that?  And in direct contravention to the specific instructions of the President?

I got one on my thumb drive, but I'll be hanging out in the Hong Kong embassy until funds are wired into my account, and I am granted full immunity... then, and only then will I release this magical plan. 

The heist is not the only viable, possibly affordable mission for SLS. 

It's my assertion against NASA's assertion.  NASA is throwing its full weight behind the heist, as they have been legally instructed to do.  They do not consider any alternative.  NASA has also been instructed to exceed the minimum maximum throw weight of SLS as quickly as possible, and to assert, without any proof whatsoever, that this is the only way that the USG will ever launch people into space, basically for all time.

It's a no-win situation, that has been deliberately created.  SLS has an ostensible purpose, but no real, viable purpose.

Check the OP.  We keep asking for a lunar base as a precursor to further human exploration of the solar system.  And the PTB keep not doing it.  With an honest intention to achieve, it is affordable and certainly viable.

As is well known, honesty in our government is not the best policy.  Therefore the intentions continue to be suspect.  The people in government who financially benefit personally from the current arrangement, will not relinquish their grip.  As they continue to fight among themselves, NASA will continue to founder, and it's starting to look like NASA's budget is on a downward trend; most likely the result of their decades of non-accomplishment.

I'm gonna keep doing what I'm doing, in a personal effort to get the country back on the right track.

BTW, I've anwered your question many times on this forum.

[MATTBLAK]

I would like to see an L-2 Gateway Station as a precursor/companion to Lunar Exploration: get Private Industry to participate in a competition for a reusable 2x person Lander that could support a man-tended (not permanent at first) Lunar Polar Outpost. Stipulate that the craft comes in two 'flavors'.

A 'Common Descent Stage' (CDS) that has either:

1: A crewed Ascent Stage.
2: A Cargo Pallet; capable of 'self-unloading' on the Lunar surface. Alternatively, an Inflatable Habitat could be carried on the back of the CDS to act as the 'Outpost'. A prototype, yes - but a good start.

Option 3: Make the CDS scaleable for Mars missions by building in the capability to one day mount an aeroshell on the CDS chassis and higher-thrust engines, too.

Other alternatives for the L-2 Gateway: use a derivative of it's configuration as an Asteroid/Phobos etc Deep Space Ship via the addition of SEP and chemical propulsion modules. Heck - if someone wants to eventually add (conceptual) NEP or Nuclear Thermal Propulsion modules, that would be just fine by me!

And I'm being launcher agnostic - SLS is what I put in the nice-to-have category but the launchers for all the above could just as easily be a mixed-fleet of Delta IV-H (slightly uprated), Falcon Heavy, Ariane V and Anagara. Authorize NASA to Go somewhere, already! But they don't have to do it alone...

[yg1968]

The revised House NASA Authorization bill has been marked up:
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/NASA%20Auth%20Committee%20Print.pdf

One key change is that the next round for commercial crew would have to be under a cost-type contract (no more fixed price milestones):

SEC. 215. CERTIFICATION PRODUCTS CONTRACT PHASE
4 TWO.
5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Phase two and any subsequent
6 phase of the Certification Products Contract, and any fur-
7 ther acquisition or development actions taken by the Ad-
8 ministration under the Commercial Crew Program, shall
9 be executed—
10 (1) under a cost-type contract specified by Fed-
11 eral Acquisition Regulations; and
12 (2) except as provided in subsection (b), in ac-
13 cordance with the 2012 Annual Report of the Aero-
14 space Safety Advisory Panel.

[yg1968]

Here is the link to the archived webcast of today's House hearing on the 2013 NASA Authorization bill:
http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia/science/sst2013/SP071013.wvx
http://science.house.gov/markup/subcommittee-space-markup-committee-print-nasa-authorization-act-2013

Subcommittee on Space Markup of Committee Print, NASA Authorization Act of 2013

The Committee will meet to consider the following measure, or for other purposes:

  -Committee Print, NASA Authorization Act of 2013
   Approved by a vote of 11:9

  -Amendment 020, offered by Ms. Edwards (D-Md.),
   Defeated by a vote of   12:9

[yg1968]

The revised House NASA Authorization bill has been marked up:
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/NASA%20Auth%20Committee%20Print.pdf

One key change is that the next round for commercial crew would have to be under a cost-type contract (no more fixed price milestones):

SEC. 215. CERTIFICATION PRODUCTS CONTRACT PHASE
4 TWO.
5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Phase two and any subsequent
6 phase of the Certification Products Contract, and any fur-
7 ther acquisition or development actions taken by the Ad-
8 ministration under the Commercial Crew Program, shall
9 be executed—
10 (1) under a cost-type contract specified by Fed-
11 eral Acquisition Regulations; and
12 (2) except as provided in subsection (b), in ac-
13 cordance with the 2012 Annual Report of the Aero-
14 space Safety Advisory Panel.

At the 53 minute mark of the archived webcast, Rep. Rohrabacher (R) spoke very firmly against the idea of using a cost-type FAR contract for the next round of commercial crew. He got a commitment from Palazzo that they would continue to work on this provision before it goes to the full committee. Rohrabacher suggested getting ride of that provision. Glad somebody is speaking out against this idea!

http://science.house.gov/markup/subcommittee-space-markup-committee-print-nasa-authorization-act-2013

[QuantumG]

Only in the House are such questions even raised. No-one has suggested a "cost-type FAR" contract for commercial crew. The commercial crew office has this crazy idea that they can craft a fixed price FAR contract that is as good as an SAA partnership, but gives NASA way more control. Last I heard, the partners were still "we'll believe it when we see it" and so far they haven't.

[yg1968]

Only in the House are such questions even raised. No-one has suggested a "cost-type FAR" contract for commercial crew. The commercial crew office has this crazy idea that they can craft a fixed price FAR contract that is as good as an SAA partnership, but gives NASA way more control. Last I heard, the partners were still "we'll believe it when we see it" and so far they haven't.

The suggestion for a cost-type contract for the next round of commercial crew development was made by ASAP. Rohrabacher politely reminded other Representatives that ASAP is only an advisory group and that they are used to the traditional way of doing things. But he said that the ASAP's suggestions shouldn't be included in legislation.

[yg1968]

Here is the link to the archived webcast of today's House hearing on the 2013 NASA Authorization bill:
http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia/science/sst2013/SP071013.wvx
http://science.house.gov/markup/subcommittee-space-markup-committee-print-nasa-authorization-act-2013

Here is the archived webcast on YouTube:

[Star One]

It really boils down to jobs doesn't it.

At one point, Edwards asked Rep. Bill Posey, R-Rockledge, how many jobs would be lost in his district at Kennedy Space Center if the GOP bill becomes law. Posey responded that Obama “has pretty much already devastated the employment” at KSC when in 2010 he canceled the Constellation program that would have resumed moon missions.

In an interview after the hearing, Posey said Democrats are ignoring the reality of budget cuts by expecting NASA to continue the same level of research and science it’s been asked to do lately.

“I think the top priority should be manned space flight … NASA should focus on space,” he said, adding that plenty of other federal agencies handle research and science on the planet. “We have to have priorities. If there was unlimited money -- fine. But there has to be priorities.”

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130710/SPACE/130710015/House-bill-would-cut-NASA-money-science-asteroid-mission

[JohnFornaro]

It really boils down to jobs doesn't it.

At one point, Edwards asked Rep. Bill Posey, R-Rockledge, how many jobs would be lost in his district at Kennedy Space Center if the GOP bill becomes law. Posey responded that Obama “has pretty much already devastated the employment” at KSC when in 2010 he canceled the Constellation program that would have resumed moon missions.

In an interview after the hearing, Posey said Democrats are ignoring the reality of budget cuts by expecting NASA to continue the same level of research and science it’s been asked to do lately.

“I think the top priority should be manned space flight … NASA should focus on space,” he said, adding that plenty of other federal agencies handle research and science on the planet. “We have to have priorities. If there was unlimited money -- fine. But there has to be priorities.”

Slightly disagree:  It's also about properly setting priorities, and then achieving those properly prioritized goals.  This is something that the politicians, the bureacrats, and the corporate leadership are demonstrably not focused on.

Imagine MSL having been launched on time; JWST having been launched in, say, 2003; and a liquid fueled LV carrying astros to ISS in 2010, before the last shuttle flight.  The Europa mission would have been scheduled for launch tomorrow, say.  Both sides of the aisle would have found a way to keep NASA funding at $18B.

Overall, it's mostly about timely and affordable accomplishment.

[spectre9]

Looks like Lamar Smith has been reading NSF 

http://thehill.com/special-reports/innovation-a-intellectual-property-july-2013/309991-asteroid-retrieval-is-costly-and-uninspiring-

[Proponent]

Much to my amazement, I can actually agree with some of what Rep. Smith has to say.  It's just farcical, however, for him to argue that the asteroid heist's price too great when he's been calling for SLS-based lunar missions, which would be far more expensive.

I'm reluctantly pushed to the hypothesis that he wants SLS but does not want it to be used for much of anything.  If anybody has a different hypothesis that's consistent with the data, I'd be curious to hear it.

[JohnFornaro]

Much to my amazement, I can actually agree with some of what Rep. Smith has to say.  It's just farcical, however, for him to argue that the asteroid heist's price too great when he's been calling for SLS-based lunar missions, which would be far more expensive.

I'm reluctantly pushed to the hypothesis that he wants SLS but does not want it to be used for much of anything.  If anybody has a different hypothesis that's consistent with the data, I'd be curious to hear it.

I totally get that.

After all, SLS, and a DSH, and a martian lander for twice the lunar gravity well, even the labor costs for a two year long mission versus a two week mission, and everything else besides, for going to Mars, as has been insisted upon by Mr. Bolden, is a lot cheaper than going to Luna.  Easier too.

Plus, the USG has a stated, critical, urgent, need for all those resources in a 7m asteroid.  And if SLS and Orion are only used for eight hours, well hey:  That's reasonable, and will satisfy the BTDT component.  Then we can go to Mars.

So I totally get all that.

[clongton]

Much to my amazement, I can actually agree with some of what Rep. Smith has to say.  It's just farcical, however, for him to argue that the asteroid heist's price too great when he's been calling for SLS-based lunar missions, which would be far more expensive.

I'm reluctantly pushed to the hypothesis that he wants SLS but does not want it to be used for much of anything.  If anybody has a different hypothesis that's consistent with the data, I'd be curious to hear it.

I totally get that.

After all, SLS, and a DSH, and a martian lander for twice the lunar gravity well, even the labor costs for a two year long mission versus a two week mission, and everything else besides, for going to Mars, as has been insisted upon by Mr. Bolden, is a lot cheaper than going to Luna.

I don't believe anything bolden says. He's smart enough to know better than to outright lie but has no problem allowing people to believe something that is not true if that serve's his master's agenda. Wikipedia is a more reliable source than he is.

[Tea Party Space Czar]

Looks like Lamar Smith has been reading NSF 

http://thehill.com/special-reports/innovation-a-intellectual-property-july-2013/309991-asteroid-retrieval-is-costly-and-uninspiring-

No but Chris Shank may.  Mr. Shank is a very intelligent man who worked in the CxP program before coming to work on the Hill.  While I do not always agree with him he does listen.

He is one of the more accessible space staffers out there... and while there is no way he could respond to a ton of emails and phone calls - you know he will read them and respond where he can.  There is nothing from stopping you from contacting him, or any other space staffer, and letting them know how you feel.

Not sucking up - like I said we disagree more than we agree - just providing some intellectual honesty and integrity here.

...about section 215...

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space

PS If anyone needs any help with contacting their congressman or senator, feel free to message me.  We have all the contact information on both sides of the aisle.

edited for clarification

[yg1968]

The House would only appropriate $500M for commercial crew for FY2014 and would impose FAR beyond the CCiCap base period.

See page 65:

http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hrpt-113-hr-fy2014-cjs.pdf

Commercial crew.—The overriding purpose of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) is to restore domestic access to the International Space Station (ISS) as quickly and safely as possible, and the Committee expects that NASA will manage CCP funds in a manner that is consistent with that goal. This will require pursuing all development and certification work beyond the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) base period through Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)–based contracts; making strategic decisions about the number of industry partners to retain in the certification phase; and finding ways to incentivize greater private investment by industry partners in order to reduce the government’s financial obligations for the program.  At the recommended level, NASA will be able to support all remaining costs for the CCiCap base period and the Certification Products Contracts; all annual program support costs; and a portion of the Commercial Crew Certification Contracts phase, which is not estimated to begin until the summer of 2014.

[muomega0]

The House would only appropriate $500M for commercial crew for FY2014 and would impose FAR beyond the CCiCap base period.

See page 65:

http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hrpt-113-hr-fy2014-cjs.pdf

Commercial crew.—The overriding purpose of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) is to restore domestic access to the International Space Station (ISS) as quickly and safely as possible, and the Committee expects that NASA will manage CCP funds in a manner that is consistent with that goal. This will require pursuing all development and certification work beyond the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) base period through Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)–based contracts; making strategic decisions about the number of industry partners to retain in the certification phase; and finding ways to incentivize greater private investment by industry partners in order to reduce the government’s financial obligations for the program.  At the recommended level, NASA will be able to support all remaining costs for the CCiCap base period and the Certification Products Contracts; all annual program support costs; and a portion of the Commercial Crew Certification Contracts phase, which is not estimated to begin until the summer of 2014.

so in summary:   Exploration Total 3.6B 
Orion     1B    SLS 1.8B   COTS  0.5B   R&D  0.3B
habs, landers, depots, tankers, upper stages,   0B

Since SLS/Orion are too costly, instead of sending Orion 70,000 km from the moon, a new exploration budget is proposed:

Exploration Total:         4.7B
Habitat                             0.7B
LEO Depot                       0.8B
Tankers, Transfer Stages 0.8B
COTS                               1.0B
EP                                    0.6B
R&D (GCR shield, etc)     0.8B

and one sends a habitat to L2 with visits from the crew gradually increased from a few days to the one year required for the round trip to Mars in 2030s, with crew and hardware in the proper environment (micro-g and full GCR), as well as develop the lightweight system and tradeoffs required.

Once the infrastructure is in place (7 years or so), start working on the missions and other hardware required.   Quite the exciting future

[Mark S]

So your solution for SLS/Orion, which you say makes the Exploration budget too expensive at $3.6 billion per year, is to increase the Exploration budget by 30% to $4.7 billion per year? And it will only take seven years to become operational, instead of the four years we have until SLS's first flight?

And instead of $15 billion over the next 4-5 years before operational, we spend $33 billion over the next seven years? And we will end up with no HLV, no Orion, and also still no payloads?

Your logic fails me.

[AnalogMan]

Latest activity on H.R. 2687:

Full Committee Markup - H.R. 2687, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2013
Jul 18, 2013 9:15am

Markup will be webcast live:
http://mfile.akamai.com/65778/live/reflector:39667.asx?bkup=39949&prop=n

Scanned copy of H.R 2687 [.xml time stamped July 15, 2013 9:51 a.m.] is linked:
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HR2687%20NASAAuthorization.pdf

but this may be identical to the previously marked-up version [time stamped July 3, 2013] posted in this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32171.msg1072866#msg1072866

[muomega0]

So your solution for SLS/Orion, which you say makes the Exploration budget too expensive at $3.6 billion per year, is to increase the Exploration budget by 30% to $4.7 billion per year? And it will only take seven years to become operational, instead of the four years we have until SLS's first flight?

And instead of $15 billion over the next 4-5 years before operational, we spend $33 billion over the next seven years? And we will end up with no HLV, no Orion, and also still no payloads?

Your logic fails me.

Four years for SLS and Orion to become "operational"  to do (please fill in the blank).   Perhaps you mean fly 70,000 km from the moon for 25 days, but not to an asteroid?  Please tell what does this accomplish?  And then what is next mission or payload and how can you pay for it when sls/orion consume 2.5B/year?

Can you present a plan forward within the budget with SLS in the mix?  is that the 2047 plan and do you have a link?

Anyway, back to the plan and what NASA will have as assets:

You will a depot in LEO.  You will have a habitat at L2  (that is a payload to Mars, no?).  You will have the ability to send tankers to fill the depot.  You will have the ability fill transfer stages and large mass to L2 due to amplification factor   You will be not have solid motor, external tank, J2X and Orion production lines.   You will have LEO capsules and they can be modified for the short trip to L2.

I thought with such a great plan to cancel SLS/Orion and start working economical access to space, Congress would plus up the budget!  It seems like its headed the other way, no?

Okay.   Simply shift the dollars for R&D back down and take a few million way from each of the above to arrive back to 3.6B.  Its better than going nowhere.

Exploration Total:         3.6B
Habitat                             0.7B
LEO Depot                        0.8B
Tankers, Transfer Stages  0.6B
COTS                               1.0B
EP                                    0.2B
R&D (GCR shield, etc)        0.3B

[Mark S]

I agree we will eventually need depots and habs and tankers and much more besides. However, political reality is that NASA has to get SLS and Orion operational before Congress will contemplate funding additional hardware projects.

Not because we don't need those things, but because the established funding method for NASA is "go as you pay", and they are not willing to pay more at this time. Although the Senate FY14 appropriations markup is a hopeful sign. SLS and Orion are absolutely mandatory in Congress' eyes, and Congress will not allow them to be subverted by (what are in their eyes) other distractions.

And I totally agree that this Administration has done a horrible job at defining an appropriate BLEO mission for NASA (your "fill in the blank" point). Since the Moon is BTDT, and Mars is no-go until at least 2035, what is NASA to do in the meantime? Apparently, a lot of thumb-twiddling, since Congress is not going to fund the asteroid heist either.

Maybe once Orion has its test flight in 2014 and SLS has its initial launch in 2017, the then-current Administration and Congress will be more inclined to demand more out of NASA than one BLEO mission every four years.

Mark S.

Edit: "your" not "you're"

[yg1968]

Senator Nelson should be introducing the Senate's version of the NASA Authorization bill today:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/07/17/nelson-to-introduce-senate-version-of-nasa-authorization-bill-today/

[spectre9]

NASA is facing one of their lowest budgets ever and what is surely to be the worst 10 year period in it's history.

$16.5b will cripple NASA.

Things like SLS/Orion are laughable under that top line. JWST not far behind. Mars 2020 rover? Don't get me started.

The money goes in but doesn't come out. It's just stretched to thin.

If the senate doesn't succeed in getting the budget up to $18b my enthusiasm for NASA will drop a much bigger percentage than their budget is.

[yg1968]

Latest activity on H.R. 2687:

Full Committee Markup - H.R. 2687, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2013
Jul 18, 2013 9:15am

Markup will be webcast live:
http://mfile.akamai.com/65778/live/reflector:39667.asx?bkup=39949&prop=n

Scanned copy of H.R 2687 [.xml time stamped July 15, 2013 9:51 a.m.] is linked:
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HR2687%20NASAAuthorization.pdf

but this may be identical to the previously marked-up version [time stamped July 3, 2013] posted in this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32171.msg1072866#msg1072866

Hearing is currently on. Palazzo mentioned that there will be a manager's amendment to address some of the concerns expressed last week. 

[yg1968]

Rohrabacher is happy with the amendments to section 215. It gives NASA more flexibility as to the type of contract that commercial crew will be under in the next round.   

[Rocket Science]

Quote from the Chair:  “We now have the M&M defense and the Tooth Fairy defense” in opposition... Oh bother...

[yg1968]

The Senate version of the NASA Authorization bill is now available:
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/text-of-nelson-rockefeller-2013-nasa-authorization-bill-now-available

[spectre9]

That budget looks juicy.

For some reason that gives me little hope it's possible 

[yg1968]

Rohrabacher is happy with the amendments to section 215. It gives NASA more flexibility as to the type of contract that commercial crew will be under in the next round.   

Rohrabacher was right to be happy. Section 215 is much improved (see page 6):
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/SMITTX_016_xml.pdf

See the rest of the amendments here:
http://science.house.gov/markup/full-committee-markup-hr-2687-national-aeronautics-and-space-administration-authorization-act

[yg1968]

I hadn't noticed this before but an amendment was passed in the House Authorization bill which deleted section 711 (which would have extended the Administrator's term to 6 years). Democrats and three Republicans including Rep. Rohrabacher voted in favour of the amendment deleting section 711. 

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/Johnson_007Administrator%20Term%20Amendment.pdf

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/07/19/nasa-authorization-bill-clears-science-committee-but-with-a-few-changes/

[yg1968]

Chris Shank, House Sci Cmte majority staff:

Shank: with budget deal in place, moving forward later this month and next month on NASA authorization bill.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/421000821309177857

[JohnFornaro]

A few amendments did get approved, mostly covering relatively minor topics rather than bigger policy issues. Smith introduced, and won passage on a voice vote, a package of amendments that includes a revised Section 215, which in the original version of the bill called for the use of “cost-type” contracts for future rounds of the commercial crew program.

What is this new financial innovation of "cost-type" contracts?  Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway?

Wait a sec.  That SpacePolitics article is rather old.  I'm not sure I understand the relevance of its inclusion in yg1968's post?  Just the term limitation repeal?

I hadn't noticed this before but an amendment was passed in the House Authorization bill which deleted section 711 (which would have extended the Administrator's term to 6 years). Democrats and three Republicans including Rep. Rohrabacher voted in favour of the amendment deleting section 711.

[yg1968]

The post that you are responding too is also from last July. But no activity has happenned on the NASA Authorization bill since that time (which is why nobody posted on this topic since that time).

The House and the Senate did not want to put their respective NASA Authorization bill up for a vote until they were clearer on the numbers that they were going to be working with. The Budget deal has resolved this issue. So work can (and will) now continue on the NASA Authorization bill. There is some subtstantial differences between the House and Senate versions. I am not sure what will happen with that. I can't say that I like the House's version but we will see what will happen.

Incidentally, the cost plus language for CCtCap was removed last July. I am not sure why it had been included in the first place. It would have completely sabotaged CCtCap.  As you know CCtCap is under FAR but it pays fixed milestones amounts (it is not cost plus).  The term limit was also removed in July.

[yg1968]

An update on the House's NASA Authorization bill. Work on it should continue at the end of this month and next month:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/01/16/with-a-budget-in-place-house-members-plan-to-return-to-nasa-authorization-bill/

Hopefully, the Senate will do the same.

[JohnFornaro]

The post that you are responding too is also from last July. But no activity has happenned on the NASA Authorization bill since that time (which is why nobody posted on this topic since that time).

Thanks.  I still have a bit of confusion in that my current understanding is that there is no priority for the Moon whatsoever.

Oh.  And this from the snappy comeback department:

I was quite surprised, then, that House members who've made clear that SLS is their top priority came out against the heist, which seems to be the only viable, possibly affordable mission for SLS that anybody's been able to come up with in the nearly three years it's been in the works.

So, I'm wondering why they're opposed to the heist.

The short answer is that "viable" is not at all the same as "valuable".

[jimhillhouse]

According to a vitriolic post on another site, on page 162 of the Appropriations Act $171 million of the $696 million Commercial Crew funds are to be withheld until NASA Administrator Bolden releases a cost-benefit analysis of commercial crew flights to ISS vs. paying for Soyuz seats. So, until that study is done, only $525 million is available.

Chris, can you confirm this? Has the panel been organized?

[AnalogMan]

According to a vitriolic post on another site, on page 162 of the Appropriations Act $171 million of the $696 million Commercial Crew funds are to be withheld until NASA Administrator Bolden releases a cost-benefit analysis of commercial crew flights to ISS vs. paying for Soyuz seats. So, until that study is done, only $525 million is available.

Chris, can you confirm this? Has the panel been organized?

Already being discussed on this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33812.0

[yg1968]

Looks like the House 2014 NASA Authorization bill will be marked up on April 9:
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-ss-t-subcommittee-to-mark-up-nasa-authorization-bill-on-april-9

http://science.house.gov/markup/subcommittee-space-markup-hr-national-aeronautics-and-space-administration-authorization-act