NASA Authorization Act pushes for Moon and Mars priority

[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.