Quote from: OV-106 on 07/15/2010 08:59 pmQuote from: nooneofconsequence on 07/15/2010 08:53 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 08:45 pmWell, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).So would I.As a taxpayer, shelling out 9+B and watching Ares I-X was a very painful experience. I do not hold JSC or MSFC in high regard - more desire a tight leash with a choke chain on the end ...Then you should probably keep your facts straight too if you're going to bash thousands of people for no reason. 9+ billion was not just for Ares 1-X.I think what he is saying is that there should be greater accountability with the way funds are spent. While Ares I didn't account for the whole $9 billion, it sure as heck tied up Orion forcing numerous redesigns that forced it over budget and its performance to lack what it was envisioned as. Certainly this is not the fault of the vast majority of people who work at those centers but rather people who pushed their favorite design over serious misgivings by a lot of people who said Ares I was a poor architecture. There should be greater transparency in reporting what goes on at NASA to Congress, or really any government agency for that matter to see that funds are not wasted.
Quote from: nooneofconsequence on 07/15/2010 08:53 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 08:45 pmWell, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).So would I.As a taxpayer, shelling out 9+B and watching Ares I-X was a very painful experience. I do not hold JSC or MSFC in high regard - more desire a tight leash with a choke chain on the end ...Then you should probably keep your facts straight too if you're going to bash thousands of people for no reason. 9+ billion was not just for Ares 1-X.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 08:45 pmWell, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).So would I.As a taxpayer, shelling out 9+B and watching Ares I-X was a very painful experience. I do not hold JSC or MSFC in high regard - more desire a tight leash with a choke chain on the end ...
Well, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).
Quote from: neilh on 07/15/2010 09:04 pmI also just noticed that none of the released statements (from Sens. Rockefeller, Nelson, Hutchison, and Shelby) actually explicitly mention Orion. Hutchison and Nelson do mention a "crew capsule for exploration", though. Didn't have to. It's mentioned in the draft, Section 303:The Administrator shall pursue the development of a multi-purpose crew vehicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no later than for use with the Space Launch System. The vehicle shall be based on designs and materials developed in the Orion project.Orion as we know it will be morphed back into what it was originally intended for.
I also just noticed that none of the released statements (from Sens. Rockefeller, Nelson, Hutchison, and Shelby) actually explicitly mention Orion. Hutchison and Nelson do mention a "crew capsule for exploration", though.
Quote from: clongton on 07/15/2010 09:24 pmQuote from: neilh on 07/15/2010 09:04 pmI also just noticed that none of the released statements (from Sens. Rockefeller, Nelson, Hutchison, and Shelby) actually explicitly mention Orion. Hutchison and Nelson do mention a "crew capsule for exploration", though. Didn't have to. It's mentioned in the draft, Section 303:The Administrator shall pursue the development of a multi-purpose crew vehicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no later than for use with the Space Launch System. The vehicle shall be based on designs and materials developed in the Orion project.Orion as we know it will be morphed back into what it was originally intended for.That still leaves open the question of whether Orion will be used for transporting crew to LEO, though, or if crew will be launched separately. I also think use of the phrase "the vehicle shall be based on designs and materials developed in the Orion project" rather than simply describing it as "the Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle" is interesting.I suppose it could go the other way, too, and the funding for the amended items is paid for by cost reductions in Orion since it no longer has to be crammed onto an Ares I.
(3) The capability to provide an alternative means of delivery of crew and cargo to the ISS, in the event other vehicles, whether commercial vehicles or partner-supplied vehicles, are unable to perform that function.
Just from things Ive read smart people post here in the past, I'd be surprised if Orion block 1 was significantly changed. And, imo, they are still going to have a close the gap mentality. They may even develop a sense that they are racing commercial to the finish line.
Quote from: mr_magoo on 07/15/2010 09:37 pmJust from things Ive read smart people post here in the past, I'd be surprised if Orion block 1 was significantly changed. And, imo, they are still going to have a close the gap mentality. They may even develop a sense that they are racing commercial to the finish line.They may even continue with the Block 0 already being worked first, and evolve from there. If functionality is being brought back in, Orion isn't going to be cheaper, so hopefully they don't pull from Orion funding with these amendments while at the same time levying additional requirements.
Quote from: TexasRED on 07/15/2010 09:48 pmQuote from: mr_magoo on 07/15/2010 09:37 pmJust from things Ive read smart people post here in the past, I'd be surprised if Orion block 1 was significantly changed. And, imo, they are still going to have a close the gap mentality. They may even develop a sense that they are racing commercial to the finish line.They may even continue with the Block 0 already being worked first, and evolve from there. If functionality is being brought back in, Orion isn't going to be cheaper, so hopefully they don't pull from Orion funding with these amendments while at the same time levying additional requirements. My understanding of the July 13th Senate bill was that there would only be one single BEO capsule since BEO capability was stated to be a minimum requirement for the capsule. In other words, there would be no block 0 or block 1 capsules.
For purposes of meeting such goal, the Administrator may undertake a test of the transportation vehicle at the ISS before that date.
Not too sure what the amendments mean and hopefully it does not harm HLV for the sake of the fat cat commercial companies.
I'll just say that for myself, I'm just happy that MAYBE now we can get some hint of direction of how to proceed with work. Because, quite frankly, working with this mentality of just drifting along, not knowing what to maintain, tear down, etc. because noone knows what the next program, if there is one, will require, since everyone is waiting for SOMEONE to make a frickin' decision, is really beginning to suck.
Any confirmation yet of White House backing of this bill?
JSC management is 100% Side-Mount oriented. They said several things that were designed to enhance the expectations of Side-Mount at the expense of In-Line. Of course they would. It's their baby. The JSC vs. MSFC (Side-Mount vs. In-Line) dynamic is in full swing in that document. Knowing the politics at play, would anyone have expected to see anything different?
Quote from: clongton on 07/15/2010 10:32 pmAny confirmation yet of White House backing of this bill?Was also wondering this since Nelson said to expect it today. Do the amendments have to be settled first?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 08:33 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 07/15/2010 08:22 pm...I'm a tax-payer, I have no horse in this race other than seeing the best return on investment for my money.I have been a part of many bids for computer equipment for the government, and I can't tell you how many times "favored" companies were chosen which cost multiple times more for the same or less capability, sometimes in the name of a single feature "check-box" (ignoring the more important features not included) but usually for no real reason. There were other competitors with similar price-points and features and quality as our systems, but they weren't chosen either. This is just one more example of the government not making a decision based on price/performance.Is the idea that there should be a decision based on price/performance so outrageous that I have to be characterized as demanding "all the money"? Besides, I don't work for the government, the government works for me (as a tax-payer), so it's partly my money! The money belongs to the tax-payers, not to the government workers or the government contractors. I'm allowed to have an opinion on how it's spent, and I don't have to be happy when I think it's not being spent wisely.SpaceX is great, but there are many other contenders out there. If a robust commercial system is to exist, there needs to be more than one.I don't disagree with your preamble. No one should. That doesn't mean you have to abandon everything to achieve it. 1.6 billion, or there abouts, for what the hard-corp advocates have compared to Gemini, should be sufficient. SpaceX claims they did everything for less than the Ares 1 tower, approximately 500K. As folks also like to point out, some of the rockets already exist and are flight proven, meaning Atlas and Delta. Therefore, when factoring some amount of capital investment, 1.6 billion seems sufficient.
Quote from: OV-106 on 07/15/2010 08:22 pm...I'm a tax-payer, I have no horse in this race other than seeing the best return on investment for my money.I have been a part of many bids for computer equipment for the government, and I can't tell you how many times "favored" companies were chosen which cost multiple times more for the same or less capability, sometimes in the name of a single feature "check-box" (ignoring the more important features not included) but usually for no real reason. There were other competitors with similar price-points and features and quality as our systems, but they weren't chosen either. This is just one more example of the government not making a decision based on price/performance.Is the idea that there should be a decision based on price/performance so outrageous that I have to be characterized as demanding "all the money"? Besides, I don't work for the government, the government works for me (as a tax-payer), so it's partly my money! The money belongs to the tax-payers, not to the government workers or the government contractors. I'm allowed to have an opinion on how it's spent, and I don't have to be happy when I think it's not being spent wisely.SpaceX is great, but there are many other contenders out there. If a robust commercial system is to exist, there needs to be more than one.
...
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 08:45 pmWell, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).Why? If SpaceX did if for what they claim in press releases and two rockets already exist and are flight proven, then 1.6 billion essentially allows for many "other SpaceX-types" with some wiggle room to account for variations in company-to-company. Again, this does not include whatever factor capital investment is required.