NASA Authorization Act pushes for Moon and Mars priority

[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.