Quote from: yg1968 on 03/30/2012 03:42 pmI agree with you on the need to create a market as I have told you previously. But cutting commercial crew from $830 million to $500M probably means down selecting to two providers under CCiCap which in my mind means that we can say good bye to Dream Chaser which would be a shame. "Your mind" means absolutely nothing quite honestly. You have zero credibility to suggest what possible vehicle people say "good bye" to.
I agree with you on the need to create a market as I have told you previously. But cutting commercial crew from $830 million to $500M probably means down selecting to two providers under CCiCap which in my mind means that we can say good bye to Dream Chaser which would be a shame.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 03/30/2012 03:21 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/30/2012 02:22 pmQuote from: 51D Mascot on 03/30/2012 01:46 pmThey "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying. Actually, the Augustine option to extend the Shuttle to 2015 would have used a cargo only Directly Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle (not Ares I). This option still would have funded commercial crew (instead of Ares I). Augustine replaced Ares I with commercial crew in almost all of his options. See slide 33 of the Sally Ride Presentation:http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.pptOh, and just to clarify, my reference to Ares 1 was with respect to the 2008 Act and what was known or anticipated with respect to the Ares 1 schedule at that time--not to be confused with my subsequent reference to Augustine, which was, of course, a year later.It's kind of telling that one year of real time resulted in 4 years of slip in expected availability date...~Jon
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/30/2012 02:22 pmQuote from: 51D Mascot on 03/30/2012 01:46 pmThey "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying. Actually, the Augustine option to extend the Shuttle to 2015 would have used a cargo only Directly Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle (not Ares I). This option still would have funded commercial crew (instead of Ares I). Augustine replaced Ares I with commercial crew in almost all of his options. See slide 33 of the Sally Ride Presentation:http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.pptOh, and just to clarify, my reference to Ares 1 was with respect to the 2008 Act and what was known or anticipated with respect to the Ares 1 schedule at that time--not to be confused with my subsequent reference to Augustine, which was, of course, a year later.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 03/30/2012 01:46 pmThey "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying. Actually, the Augustine option to extend the Shuttle to 2015 would have used a cargo only Directly Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle (not Ares I). This option still would have funded commercial crew (instead of Ares I). Augustine replaced Ares I with commercial crew in almost all of his options. See slide 33 of the Sally Ride Presentation:http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.ppt
They "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/30/2012 03:56 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/30/2012 03:42 pmI agree with you on the need to create a market as I have told you previously. But cutting commercial crew from $830 million to $500M probably means down selecting to two providers under CCiCap which in my mind means that we can say good bye to Dream Chaser which would be a shame. "Your mind" means absolutely nothing quite honestly. You have zero credibility to suggest what possible vehicle people say "good bye" to. It's not a matter of credibility. If you read the selection statement for CCDev-2, they clearly state that Boeing and SpaceX's proposals were a notch above the rest. It's naive to think that you can cut commercial crew funding from the requested $830 M without sacrifying one of the stronger proposal. In any event, even if I am wrong about Dream Chaser, cutting Boeing or SpaceX's proposal would also be a shame. I don't feel much better about that outcome either. Cutting funding for commercial crew has consequences.
Create the need for those vehicles. That is what you consistently miss. NASA does not need that many for its purposes alone and it would be grossly irresponsible for the government to bring them all to reality and then subsidize them to keep them viable for something NASA would only use less than once a year for that many at current projections.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/30/2012 06:10 pmCreate the need for those vehicles. That is what you consistently miss. NASA does not need that many for its purposes alone and it would be grossly irresponsible for the government to bring them all to reality and then subsidize them to keep them viable for something NASA would only use less than once a year for that many at current projections. On this specific topic, one of the interesting things that Gerst said at the March 28th House Hearing is that research time is not currently maximized because of other tasks that need to be done by astronauts on board the ISS. He added that the additionnal astronaut under commercial crew (commercial crew spacecrafts will have four astronauts instead of three aboard the Soyuz) would be helpful in that respect as the work done by the extra astronaut would free up some additionnal time for research. Under the same line of reasoning, you could argue that ISS utilization would benefit from having more than 2 commercial crew flights per year to the ISS in order to free up more time for research on the ISS for the astronauts on board. So 3 commercial crew flights per year might be useful after all for the ISS.
What you are proposing for the ISS is already being proposed with CASIS. I am not sure what you have added to it other than to say that it is currently a mess (which is true).
Quote from: jongoff on 03/30/2012 04:14 pmQuote from: 51D Mascot on 03/30/2012 03:21 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/30/2012 02:22 pmQuote from: 51D Mascot on 03/30/2012 01:46 pmThey "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying. Actually, the Augustine option to extend the Shuttle to 2015 would have used a cargo only Directly Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle (not Ares I). This option still would have funded commercial crew (instead of Ares I). Augustine replaced Ares I with commercial crew in almost all of his options. See slide 33 of the Sally Ride Presentation:http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.pptOh, and just to clarify, my reference to Ares 1 was with respect to the 2008 Act and what was known or anticipated with respect to the Ares 1 schedule at that time--not to be confused with my subsequent reference to Augustine, which was, of course, a year later.It's kind of telling that one year of real time resulted in 4 years of slip in expected availability date...~JonYes, it is/was...and was a key factor, aside from cost, in leading to the Senate 2010 language for a government-funded exploration vehicle capability to be a single evolvable vehicle--whatever else folks I know think about the wisdom--or not--of that decision.
I find it very hard to trust anything Bolden says. When shuttle was still flying he was promising thousands and thousands of jobs. Now he's saying some have got jobs in the oil industry in Texas. So he lied? Was badly informed? Is incapable of sticking to a story?
How many jobs have been created for the 100s of millions of dollars spent so far? With the only real result so far being the slip to 2017.
2. All bar SpaceX wouldn't of entered into CCDev without the money upfront in awards. They couldn't afford it.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/30/2012 07:32 pmWhat you are proposing for the ISS is already being proposed with CASIS. I am not sure what you have added to it other than to say that it is currently a mess (which is true). CASIS is a disaster and CASIS is a puppet bureaucracy put in place by NASA to run the supposed National Lab. The very fact that top NASA officials seem disinterested and not up to speed on what is happening with CASIS is evidence of the non-importance it plays in the grand scheme and how NASA really runs it all and the rest is for show. In fact, given we speak so much about "commercial", I see no reason why the corporation set to manage the ISS National Lab could not be *for profit* to provide additional incentive. If we were really serious. That said, "CASIS" is not what I am "proposing". What I have suggested instead is a complete review by NASA to reduce and streamline requirements and regulations required to fly something on ISS as a start. Get potential customers invovled. This would be a review that costs little money but *could* have large impacts on future utilization if indeed ISS could be made more user-friendly and attractive. In turn this could actually help produce true commercial investmentIn addition I have suggested small- to medium-prizes for the potential vehicle providers to go out and market the ISS for payloads. Those who bring in some specified amount get said bonus (and possibly the business to transport it up/down). Make it a competition and go after business on multiple fronts. While there are other potentials and this does not totally solve the "chicken-and-egg" problem it is a start. It is more than is happening now. And it is certainly more than you have suggested by just whining that not enough government money is being put at the program.
"Selling" Commercial crew to Congress in terms of ISS support and independence from Russia does not seem to be working effectively enough. Time to change rhetoric. Everytime the US buys seats from Russia, it must gain an exemption from the Iran-North Korea-Syria Nonproliferation Act. The White House and by extension NASA leadership should stress that they have to get the exemption, and by extension lessen pressure on Russia financially for support of the Iranian and Syrian regimes. With the current nuclear proliferation issues of Iran, and the Syrian regime's political crackdown Commercial crew could be sold as another tool in US foreign policy.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/30/2012 07:48 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/30/2012 07:32 pmWhat you are proposing for the ISS is already being proposed with CASIS. I am not sure what you have added to it other than to say that it is currently a mess (which is true). CASIS is a disaster and CASIS is a puppet bureaucracy put in place by NASA to run the supposed National Lab. The very fact that top NASA officials seem disinterested and not up to speed on what is happening with CASIS is evidence of the non-importance it plays in the grand scheme and how NASA really runs it all and the rest is for show. In fact, given we speak so much about "commercial", I see no reason why the corporation set to manage the ISS National Lab could not be *for profit* to provide additional incentive. If we were really serious. That said, "CASIS" is not what I am "proposing". What I have suggested instead is a complete review by NASA to reduce and streamline requirements and regulations required to fly something on ISS as a start. Get potential customers invovled. This would be a review that costs little money but *could* have large impacts on future utilization if indeed ISS could be made more user-friendly and attractive. In turn this could actually help produce true commercial investmentIn addition I have suggested small- to medium-prizes for the potential vehicle providers to go out and market the ISS for payloads. Those who bring in some specified amount get said bonus (and possibly the business to transport it up/down). Make it a competition and go after business on multiple fronts. While there are other potentials and this does not totally solve the "chicken-and-egg" problem it is a start. It is more than is happening now. And it is certainly more than you have suggested by just whining that not enough government money is being put at the program. Cautionary note: There is a LOT going on behind the scenes with respect to straightening out the CASIS stand-up and implementation issue that you are not able to be aware of. Remember, CASIS is the product of a direct requirement in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that an independent non-profit entity be established and placed under a Cooperative Agreement by the Administrator to manage the 50% allocation of the U.S. Segment of the ISS that the law designated, effective October 1, 2010, as the exclusive operating/management domain for non-NASA research aboard ISS. That includes other US government, private, commercial, academic, research entities...and opens the door for outside funding to support that research, in both ground and on-orbit components. If you want to see how it is SUPPOSED to function, read the ISS National Laboratory Reference Model, which, while not directly endorsed by NASA (for obvious reasons), it was paid for by NASA and posted on the site for all potential competitors for the Cooperative Agreement to use in their proposals; the CASIS proposal and subsequent Cooperative Agreement stipulated much of that content; it just hasn't been followed in the implementation, and THAT has been the hang-up to date. Because this is not just a "normal" solicitation that NASA chose to undertake, but one specifically mandated by Congress, and with specific duties assigned by law, it is the subject of very close oversight by the relevant Committees of jurisdiction.The Reference Model is at:http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/nlab/proorbis.html
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 03/31/2012 02:49 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 03/30/2012 07:48 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/30/2012 07:32 pmWhat you are proposing for the ISS is already being proposed with CASIS. I am not sure what you have added to it other than to say that it is currently a mess (which is true). CASIS is a disaster and CASIS is a puppet bureaucracy put in place by NASA to run the supposed National Lab. The very fact that top NASA officials seem disinterested and not up to speed on what is happening with CASIS is evidence of the non-importance it plays in the grand scheme and how NASA really runs it all and the rest is for show. In fact, given we speak so much about "commercial", I see no reason why the corporation set to manage the ISS National Lab could not be *for profit* to provide additional incentive. If we were really serious. That said, "CASIS" is not what I am "proposing". What I have suggested instead is a complete review by NASA to reduce and streamline requirements and regulations required to fly something on ISS as a start. Get potential customers invovled. This would be a review that costs little money but *could* have large impacts on future utilization if indeed ISS could be made more user-friendly and attractive. In turn this could actually help produce true commercial investmentIn addition I have suggested small- to medium-prizes for the potential vehicle providers to go out and market the ISS for payloads. Those who bring in some specified amount get said bonus (and possibly the business to transport it up/down). Make it a competition and go after business on multiple fronts. While there are other potentials and this does not totally solve the "chicken-and-egg" problem it is a start. It is more than is happening now. And it is certainly more than you have suggested by just whining that not enough government money is being put at the program. Cautionary note: There is a LOT going on behind the scenes with respect to straightening out the CASIS stand-up and implementation issue that you are not able to be aware of. Remember, CASIS is the product of a direct requirement in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that an independent non-profit entity be established and placed under a Cooperative Agreement by the Administrator to manage the 50% allocation of the U.S. Segment of the ISS that the law designated, effective October 1, 2010, as the exclusive operating/management domain for non-NASA research aboard ISS. That includes other US government, private, commercial, academic, research entities...and opens the door for outside funding to support that research, in both ground and on-orbit components. If you want to see how it is SUPPOSED to function, read the ISS National Laboratory Reference Model, which, while not directly endorsed by NASA (for obvious reasons), it was paid for by NASA and posted on the site for all potential competitors for the Cooperative Agreement to use in their proposals; the CASIS proposal and subsequent Cooperative Agreement stipulated much of that content; it just hasn't been followed in the implementation, and THAT has been the hang-up to date. Because this is not just a "normal" solicitation that NASA chose to undertake, but one specifically mandated by Congress, and with specific duties assigned by law, it is the subject of very close oversight by the relevant Committees of jurisdiction.The Reference Model is at:http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/nlab/proorbis.htmlThanks for the info. At the House hearing on March 28, Hall and Rohrabacher said that they were considering asking for a GAO report on CASSIS.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration- The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is funded at $19.4 billion, an increase of $1.6 billion over the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The large increase results from a reorganization of operational weather satellite procurement from NOAA into NASA. Without the funds for weather satellite procurement, this level represents a $41.5 million cut from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.- The bill preserves a NASA portfolio balanced among science, aeronautics, technology and human space flight investments.- Funding for the development of the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle is $1.2 billion, the same as fiscal year 2012. Heavy lift Space Launch System (SLS) development is funded at $1.5 billion, $21 million less than fiscal year 2012. The bill also provides $244 million for construction needed to build, test, and operate Orion and SLS. Commercial crew development is provided $525 million, an increase of $119 million above fiscal year 2012.- The bill provides $5 billion for Science which is $69 million less than fiscal year 2012. Within Science, the bill restores $100 million of a proposed cut to robotic Mars science programs, resulting in a total of $461 million for Mars robotic science.
It seems that no matter how many times we meet with the NASA Administrator, and no matter what commitments he makes in public or in private, it ultimately falls to the Congress, to this Committee, to keep the SLS moving forward. I wish it were not so but it's where we are.