We shouldn't defend Congress's bad decisions just because they're Congress. Just sayin'.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/06/2012 04:49 pmWe shouldn't defend Congress's bad decisions just because they're Congress. Just sayin'.I'm trying really hard to tone down my accusations of outright graft and spending the public money to line the pockets of their campaign contributors to be more civil, not trying to necessarily defend their bad decisions...Sheesh, a guy just can't get no respect, can he?~Jon
As it is also negligence of duty to pass laws that waste the taxpayer's money on needless projects.
Not a big deal. Gemini 10 and its Agena target were launched less than a 100 minutes apart.
Quote from: Jim on 04/06/2012 03:07 pmAs it is also negligence of duty to pass laws that waste the taxpayer's money on needless projects.Here, here.Quote from: Jim on 04/06/2012 03:14 pmNot a big deal. Gemini 10 and its Agena target were launched less than a 100 minutes apart. Except that when both shuttles were on the pad a couple of years ago, with one of them intended to be available to launch on need, I was told that 30 days or more would have to pass before the second one could launch....
Except that when both shuttles were on the pad a couple of years ago, with one of them intended to be available to launch on need, I was told that 30 days or more would have to pass before the second one could launch.
Quote from: jongoff on 04/06/2012 05:52 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/06/2012 04:49 pmWe shouldn't defend Congress's bad decisions just because they're Congress. Just sayin'.I'm trying really hard to tone down my accusations of outright graft and spending the public money to line the pockets of their campaign contributors to be more civil, not trying to necessarily defend their bad decisions...Sheesh, a guy just can't get no respect, can he?~JonYou weren't defending Congress's decision, merely explaining why we have what we do. That's quite true. But Mark S was.I'm just frustrated when we're talking about what Congress should do, people say "oh, well they should do such-and-such 'cause it's the law." It's infuriating, because it's no argument at all since Congress makes the law. It's akin to saying Congress should do whatever Congress wants to do. My comment certainly wasn't directed at you, our favorite mild-mannered rocket scientist.
Mark S: We shouldn't defend Congress's bad decisions just because they're Congress. Just sayin'.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/06/2012 04:49 pmMark S: We shouldn't defend Congress's bad decisions just because they're Congress. Just sayin'.This flurry of posts started with muomega0's post asking once again why SLS should even exist or be defended, so I tried to answer. If that sounds like "because Congress says so, nyah nyah" then I apologize....
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 04/06/2012 05:59 pmExcept that when both shuttles were on the pad a couple of years ago...That was launch vehicle (shuttle) driven (that was due to using one pad). Range is 48 hours now days and would be cheaper upgrading than a developing a new launch vehicle.
Except that when both shuttles were on the pad a couple of years ago...
If that sounds like "because Congress says so, nyah nyah" then I apologize.
....The ironic thing is that commercial was moving along nicely before the Administration started pitting it against SLS and MPCV.
This whole mentality of either/or is destructive and is only being fostered by those who hate the very idea of a government owned system (SLS/MPVC). I have yet to see a post from any SLS booster (heh) calling for the elimination of commercial cargo or crew. The "my way or the highway" chorus is a one-way affair with the commercial proponents leading the choir.
Quote from: Mark S on 04/06/2012 06:49 pm....The ironic thing is that commercial was moving along nicely before the Administration started pitting it against SLS and MPCV.No, that's false. It was never funded on the level needed for flight tests that would allow a competition for two final service providers on a reasonable schedule for initial service (2017). Congress seems to be acting all surprised when more funding is asked for, when they should've known all along that was the sort of funding that is required for what commercial crew is supposed to be. They should've known quite well that a ramp-up in funding is required. It has absolutely nothing to do with pitting commercial crew against SLS/Orion and everything to do with what's needed to get a redundant, competitive domestic crew access capability to ISS by 2017. Congress is playing political games with it, denying any sort of the ramp-up in funding that's clearly required (especially for any increase in oversight that Congress wants).At no time did NASA or the Administration say that commercial crew could meet its goals of redundant and competitive domestic access to ISS on schedule (for operational capability by 2017) with the measly $400-500 million per year it has had initially. And, in fact, Congress hasn't shown how that'd be possible, either.QuoteThis whole mentality of either/or is destructive and is only being fostered by those who hate the very idea of a government owned system (SLS/MPVC). I have yet to see a post from any SLS booster (heh) calling for the elimination of commercial cargo or crew. The "my way or the highway" chorus is a one-way affair with the commercial proponents leading the choir.That's a complete misrepresentation. I assume you're talking about me, but I don't think that everything should be commercial. For instance, a deep space habitat or lunar lander should be (at least initially) a government system. And commercial crew enables that. I've actually supported Orion on several occasions (even though I think it might be slightly too big, but that's really a minor technical opinion, not as big of a deal). But building the NASA-only launch vehicle is simply not worth it when we have plenty of other launch vehicles that work great and are very reliable and relatively inexpensive and are under-utilized (if anything). NASA may need its own deep-space craft, but they don't need their own very expensive rocket I believe just pushes the earliest beyond-LEO exploration further into the future.And ISS is going to be around until 2028 almost certainly. If Orion is used (on SLS, even worse) to service ISS instead of commercial crew, that will take longer to develop (i.e. longer gap) and will cost more and will push the initial exploration mission further to the right. Commercial crew allows NASA to focus on deep space. And it allows better redundancy.
Thanks, as usual, 51D Mascot. As you can see, only one CTS is guaranteed at that level, which doesn't meet the commercial crew requirement for redundancy and severely restricts NASA's bargaining power. Not only that, but it increases programmatic risk for initial operating capability, which was partly the reason for the whole effort to be designed as it is in the first place instead of a more traditional contracting method.
FYI:Excerpt from a NASA document provided to the Congress during consideration of FY 2012 funding cycle:"$500 million 2016-2017 - Likely will have one or more certified CTSs by 2017, with a potential to pull that back to 2016 assuming very robust funding levels in FY 2013-2016. If CTS certification date is past 2016, $480 million per year in additional payments to Russia will be required for Soyuz until CTS is online."Also, last numbers I've seen, IF the outcome for Commercial Crew in FY 2013 approps is at a level of $500-$600m, combined new money and carry-over from FY 2012 $ would mean a total of close to $900m would be available for expenditure in FY 2013.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 04/06/2012 07:20 pmFYI:Excerpt from a NASA document provided to the Congress during consideration of FY 2012 funding cycle:"$500 million 2016-2017 - Likely will have one or more certified CTSs by 2017, with a potential to pull that back to 2016 assuming very robust funding levels in FY 2013-2016. If CTS certification date is past 2016, $480 million per year in additional payments to Russia will be required for Soyuz until CTS is online."Also, last numbers I've seen, IF the outcome for Commercial Crew in FY 2013 approps is at a level of $500-$600m, combined new money and carry-over from FY 2012 $ would mean a total of close to $900m would be available for expenditure in FY 2013.It's a minor point but according to Ed Mango and Brent Jett only 75% of the funding of $406M (75% x $406M = $304M) for commercial crew for FY2012 will be used for CCiCap (the other 25% was used for CCDev-2 optional milestones). You also have to remember that part of the funding for commercial crew goes to the Commercial Crew Office for the work that they do. Also I think that the budgeting for SAAs works differently than FAR contracts, the $304 M (75% x $406M) will have been considered to have be spent in FY2012 at the time of the CCiCap award, I don't think that it gets carried over to FY 2013.
....a severely--and in my view inappropriately--constrained top line budget for NASA.
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/06/2012 08:39 pmQuote from: 51D Mascot on 04/06/2012 07:20 pmFYI:Excerpt from a NASA document provided to the Congress during consideration of FY 2012 funding cycle:"$500 million 2016-2017 - Likely will have one or more certified CTSs by 2017, with a potential to pull that back to 2016 assuming very robust funding levels in FY 2013-2016. If CTS certification date is past 2016, $480 million per year in additional payments to Russia will be required for Soyuz until CTS is online."Also, last numbers I've seen, IF the outcome for Commercial Crew in FY 2013 approps is at a level of $500-$600m, combined new money and carry-over from FY 2012 $ would mean a total of close to $900m would be available for expenditure in FY 2013.It's a minor point but according to Ed Mango and Brent Jett only 75% of the funding of $406M (75% x $406M = $304M) for commercial crew for FY2012 will be used for CCiCap (the other 25% was used for CCDev-2 optional milestones). You also have to remember that part of the funding for commercial crew goes to the Commercial Crew Office for the work that they do. Also I think that the budgeting for SAAs works differently than FAR contracts, the $304 M (75% x $406M) will have been considered to have be spent in FY2012 at the time of the CCiCap award, I don't think that it gets carried over to FY 2013. I'd have to double-check with the approps staff who are the experts and source of my info on the strict carry-over issues, as well as the folks at NASA, with whom we interact frequently on this, as other issues (which is a point often missed in a lot of this discussion; we actually do TALK to each other, long and often, outside the context of formal hearings, etc.). However, it seems to me on the face of it that "Considered to have been spent" is likely a technical accounting "nicety", but doesn't change the actual distribution of funds. In other words, they wouldn't lapse back to the Treasury, but would remain applicable to the purpose appropriated. So I think you're maybe stating a distinction without a real difference. But, as I have said earlier, not being an "appropriator" I can't claim expertise in this area, so I appreciate you raising the question, because I do believe it's an important point. It is clearly NOT the intent of people I work with to impede or slow development of Commercial crew, despite all the characterizations to the contrary. The issue is balanced development efforts across the agreed-upon priorities within the context of a severely--and in my view inappropriately--constrained top line budget for NASA.
As you can see, only one CTS is guaranteed at that level, which doesn't meet the commercial crew requirement for redundancy and severely restricts NASA's bargaining power.