NASA Authorization Act pushes for Moon and Mars priority

[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...