Author Topic: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards  (Read 710874 times)

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 39
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).
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.

Speaking of Orion, any chance we will see land landing return now that it will be sitting on a far more capable vehicle?


Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 07/15/2010 09:31 pm by neilh »
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Chris Bergin

Calm it down please. There's literally four people playing tag team. Let others feel they can post without being jumped on.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline TexasRED

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Houston
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9
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.

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.

Draft bill calls for the MPCV to be capable of launching crew to ISS, but doesn't mean it HAS to be used that way I suppose.

Quote
(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.

I think the language intentionally high level so that its "Orion" but with whatever mods are needed for its role. I don't they want to incur termination costs.

Offline mr_magoo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 21
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.

Offline TexasRED

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Houston
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 07/15/2010 09:49 pm by TexasRED »

Offline padrat

  • Payload Packer and Dragon tamer...
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1409
  • Where Dragons roam....
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 12
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.
If the neighbors think you're the rebel of the neighborhood, embrace it and be the rebel. It keeps them wondering what you'll do next...

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 07/15/2010 10:08 pm by yg1968 »

Offline STS Tony

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1677
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 106
Good news for sure. Not too sure what the amendments mean and hopefully it does not harm HLV for the sake of the fat cat commercial companies.

Remember what Augustine said, you can ONLY close the gap from the left, and only shuttle can do that. I would not want to lose another flight (STS-136 or whatever) for the sake of Warner's lobbying.

Offline TexasRED

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Houston
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9
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.

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.

Yeah but with this snippet below, I wonder if they couldn't use the Block 0 for a "test", which was pretty much its original intent until the CRV idea came along (though it was always launched manned).  It seems like it still could be a Block 0 before 2016, and then be at full BEO capacity by 2016.

I can't recall any language in the draft that forbids it from evolving it from a Block 0 prior to 2016. They seem to simply require it have BEO capability by 2016.

Quote
For purposes of meeting such goal, the Administrator may undertake a test of the transportation vehicle at the ISS before that date.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Not too sure what the amendments mean and hopefully it does not harm HLV for the sake of the fat cat commercial companies.

Thanks, that's one of the funniest things I've read today.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
I am of the same mind about Orion. If it is to be for BEO and it needs to be ready when the SLS is slated, then Block 2 should be vigorously pursued.

As for what transpired today...I am excited that we at least have a date and potentially firm direction in hand. I love reading all your posts. Your Pasions and knowledge are inspiring, but speaking plainly, I just want the hell out of LEO!

Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline rv_rocket

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • Denver, Co
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 15
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.

Well said padrat! Let's get on with it!!

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Any confirmation yet of White House backing of this bill?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
"Greater Houston Partnership Applauds bi-partisan compromise bill"

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=31251

Offline TexasRED

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Houston
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9
Any 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?

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
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?

I agree, but there's no way inline would be ready before sidemount, there's just too much new stuff on it. Inline is probably cheaper in the long run, but that's not the issue at the moment...

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Any 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?

The amendments have passed as modified. But we don't know what that means.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
...

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.

I'm just curious why you think it's a good idea to be rewarding failure and punishing success?  I mean, if you were a neutral party looking at this, wouldn't you think that the program that spent $10B and didn't produce much more than powerpoint slides should maybe possibly be treated less favorably than the company that spent less than $500M and put a vehicle all the way into orbit?  If this situation existed in some other government agency's domain, would you act the same way?

Me, I try to reward what I want to see more of. 

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
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).

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.

I actually don't disagree with OV on this one.  The $1.6B isn't necessarily the end of the world.  Back two years ago, we were hoping that we could somehow stretch $500M to cover at least two companies.  That said, putting restrictions on how the money is spent the first year is stupid.  How long did it take them from when they had the go-ahead on COTS to when they had the solicitation figured out, proposals in, and awards in place?  Why do they need to spend a whole year studying the problem out, when they already have good experience to build on?  Or is it just $20B HLV programs that should get funding go ahead without a plan ready in advance?

~Jon

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0