Author Topic: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2  (Read 345331 times)

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Does she feel the military should develop its own fighter jets, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines etc?

There is more, Martijn, from her statement:

Quote
Unfortunately, the FY 2011 Budget Request does not provide the means to ensure that the extension and full utilization of the space station can be realized. We are already planning to fly 10 fewer missions in completing the space station than had been planned in 2005. As a result, 10 flights' worth of flight-ready payloads--averaging between 40,000 to 50,000 pounds per flight--were essentially relegated to storage warehouses where most of them remain today, ready to fly, ready to use, but with no guaranteed "ticket to ride" to be of any use to the station.  What is most important to remember, is that the decisions about which instruments and equipment to swap into the remaining flights were based on the internal assumption of the need to support the ISS through 2015--not through 2020.

The result of this is that we do not know how many, or which, of those "grounded payload" items might actually be needed in order to ensure the station can be supported and maintained safely and reliably until 2020.  Not only that, we do not know which, or how many, of these payloads are simply too large or too heavy to be carried to orbit by any existing vehicle other than the space shuttle.  And finally, we do not know what additional items might need to be ordered, manufactured and delivered in the future, or what launch vehicle capacity will be needed to deliver them to the station. This is simply not the way a great nation should conduct its civil space program. This is not the way to ensure that a decision and pronouncement to continue operations through 2020 will not become an empty gesture due to the deterioration, damage, or failure of equipment and systems vital to providing the oxygen, water, power to make the ISS habitable and to support scientific research.

A quick key quote:

What is most important to remember, is that the decisions about which instruments and equipment to swap into the remaining flights were based on the internal assumption of the need to support the ISS through 2015--not through 2020.

If ISS cannot be supported until 2020 by these new vehicles then the entire plan collapses. A single point of failure for the entire U.S. space program.

But again, multiple new LEO destinations - other than ISS and non NASA owned or operated - would help offset this dependence on ISS and better facilitate genuine commercial crew and cargo.
« Last Edit: 02/27/2010 02:43 pm by Bill White »
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I wonder why Hutchinson is more concerned about launch vehicles than spacecraft. Is it because more people in Houston work on SSP than on Orion? Or because she doesn't really believe beyond LEO is going to happen any time soon? Something else?

Because we have a Space Station that we have assured way to support and use just as we are finishing it up and having spent so much money.

Everyone tends to forget that.  In any successful business, project...anything, there are near term goals and objectives that are to be realized as well as longer term goals and objectives that are planned for with focused ways to get you there.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Someone please convince me why commercial crew is going to be the savior that everyone thinks and hopes. 

It WILL create an aerospace bubble, which means after NASA funds most of the development, it will not only then buy the "services" (plus any additional overhead they create by requirements that are not even going to be released for another 10 months, which will be charged back to the government) but also have to subsidize the companies to keep them in business because the market cannot support all these potential vehicles by itself.

If a single provider were contracted to provide a crewed service, then NASA's flight rate would probably be sufficient to sustain that service. That would provide incentive for the provider to put their own money into the development, like COTS. The flight rate would keep the service price attractive to other customers.

But even if the development is successful & timely, that still leaves us with Soyuz as the backup. To avoid this, NASA will be funding four different development programmes.

Since they'll share 1/4 of the flight rate each, ISTM per-mission costs will be higher, so less attractive to other customers. The flight rate will also give a low return on investment, and together with the political risk of yet another cancelled NASA programme, I can't see why any of those providers will put any of their own skin in the game.

Won't NASA end up supporting four separate (but smaller) "standing armies", with the higher per-flight costs discouraging private enterprise, so NASA doesn't get the cost-sharing that it might hope for?

I wonder if SpaceX expected this sort of environment when they put together their business plan for crewed Dragon?

Martin

Ahh, now someone is finally starting to see the reality!  Excellent job.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Because we have a Space Station that we have assured way to support and use just as we are finishing it up and having spent so much money.

That doesn't require a new launch vehicle.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Because we have a Space Station that we have assured way to support and use just as we are finishing it up and having spent so much money.

That doesn't require a new launch vehicle.

The point is that it probably does.  CRS and IPs cannot lift all of the payloads for a variety of reasons, most of which focus around volume and a lack of a manoeuvreing stage to get them from orbital insertion to the ISS.  This would require not only a new spacecraft of some kind but a new LV that could carry it; It would be at the very top end of the EELV-H's lift capability, maybe higher.

I was led to undestand that some payload also could not endure the higher-gee environment of most commercial launchers compared to the relatively benign 3g-average of the shuttle.
« Last Edit: 02/27/2010 03:44 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Because we have a Space Station that we have assured way to support and use just as we are finishing it up and having spent so much money.

That doesn't require a new launch vehicle.

Ture and that was my point.  If you want to assure the space station is to become all it was promised to be, you need to keep your currently operational vehicle around a little longer.  That is, by my understanding, one of her primary concerns, full utililzation of the ISS.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
I don't have much of a problem with Shuttle extension, except for the fear it will be abused to develop an SDLV. Contra Ben ISS support can be done with EELVs. Betting the farm on SpaceX was stupid at best, but probably malicious. EELVs should have been involved from the beginning. SpaceX is a great addition, but not proven as a workhorse.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Um, what? Iridium still owns and operates those satellites. 
http://www.iridium.com/

They do, and DoD has a $36M/year contract. In 2008 Iridium had 320,000 customers, nearly a 50% growth over 2007, and a total revenue of $77M with a profit of $25M. I don't have later figures.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I don't have much of a problem with Shuttle extension, except for the fear it will be abused to develop an SDLV. Contra Ben ISS support can be done with EELVs. Betting the farm on SpaceX was stupid at best, but probably malicious. EELVs should have been involved from the beginning. SpaceX is a great addition, but not proven as a workhorse.

Yet, the payloads that would be launched on the EELV's to supply ISS do not exist yet either and would still require development. 

I'm sorry you live in fear of a SDHLV.  Yearly budget for that could be as low as 1.5 billion.  Not a bad deal for a 70-80 mT capability that you essentially have today. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Yet, the payloads that would be launched on the EELV's to supply ISS do not exist yet either and would still require development. 

OK wise guy, what payloads exist for the Shuttle that cannot be flown on EELVs? Flight hardware in parking lots in Japan doesn't count, unless you can tell us where the money to get it operational will come from.
« Last Edit: 02/27/2010 04:26 pm by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Yet, the payloads that would be launched on the EELV's to supply ISS do not exist yet either and would still require development. 

OK wise guy, what payloads exist for the Shuttle that cannot be flown on EELVs? Flight hardware in parking lots in Japan doesn't count, unless you can tell us where the money to get it operational will come from.

No need to get defensive.  Simply pointing out the facts, I'm not sure why folks who want to defend this plan so hard get like this when simple statements of truth are made. 

Could a fully stocked MPLM-like vehicle with prop tug/bus-like system attached to it be launched on an EELV?  Maybe, however that requires *development*.  Note I never said anything about hardware sitting in a parking lot in Japan.  Please enjoy the rest of your day. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
LOL, you just proved my point....

You chose a sat system where there was thought to be a market, went bankrupt anyway and then was purchased for "pennies on the dollar".

Iridium failed for a number of reasons, among them the fact that it was too expensive to ever make a decent return for a $6B investment. However, just because Iridium went bankrupt didn't mean that all the R&D, satellites, and the infrastructure to make them work simply disappeared. No, it lived on in a new recapitalized system that is able to return a profit and deliver an incredible service. As a society we get a $6B infrastructure that we didn't have to pay for.

Without the free market, it would have never happened. That's the point you refuse to see.

You compare that to the case where there is as of yet no firm plan on how this public/private partnership will work, but the intent of "multiple providers" to be funded by the government to get to operational status and once there the market cannot support.

All the while, ISS hinges on the balance....and this is the idea everyone thinks is going to "open up" space to everyone?

What happens if ISS fails because we walked away on the hope and assumption these providers come online?  The current COTS plan is already a year or two behind the original advertised date and yet no one is ready to still deliver cargo.  Is manned access going to be that much easier?

What happens when we fail to support ISS and then the sliver of a market, ISS - the only current destination for these providers, is no longer capable of supporting the "believed" need?  Will companies still want to invest their own private capital.  Nope....and these efforts fail.

What then do we get out of it?  No capability whatsoever and a "technology development" program with no focus on what those technologies will ever be used for and no firm date if and ever they are used.

Some people need to just open up their eyes here.

Again, whether any of the New Space launch providers fail or not has absolutely no bearing on whether the capabilities survive or not. Bankruptcy is not the end of a company or capability; it's merely a reorganization to create an entity that can viably survive.

You paint economic bubbles as something that's inherently evil. Bubbles are bad, if you happen to be inside of one and get taken out in the carnage. Bubbles are good for those who dwell outside of them, as an incredible amount of infrastructure can be built in a very short period of time, with tremendous downward pressure on prices and deep inroads made into a society's culture. Just what access to space needs right now.

Bubbles are why Google was able to grow its infrastructure by orders of magnitude this last decade by simply buying dark, unused fiber on the cheap. Bubbles are why the railroads criss-crossed America in the 19th century. Bubbles are why the average Japanese household has internet access that's two orders of magnitude faster than what you can get in America for half the cost.

As far as the ISS goes, we absolutely should not do anything that can damage its long term viability. We do have redundancy with our international partners; you must remember that. Whatever unique capabilities provided by the Shuttle need to be taken into account and scheduled in to whatever remaining flights we have left. Personally, I would like to see some sort of Shuttle extension, but let's face it: with a 1.5% failure rate, flying the Shuttle is what we call in statistics a "game of short duration." You fly a short manifest, you have a chance of dodging the bullet. You fly a long manifest, sooner or later you're going to get nailed.

The administration isn't willing to take that chance. If Congress is, and is also willing to pony up the extra $2B/year for it, then great. Regardless, the Shuttle is going to end, and for two decades now analysts and committees that have looked at NASA have advocated just the free market approach proposed by the Administration. It's time for us to try. Frankly, it frees NASA up for the far more interesting work of building a planetary spaceship. I don't know about you, but given the choice to work on yet another LEO launcher or building mankind's first planetary spaceship and going down in history, I know what I would chose.

Both Musk and Bigelow have plunked down nine digits of their personal wealth to make their companies a reality. They do this because they feel they can make money; they may or may not, but if they fail you can be sure there will be others of us ready to swoop in, buy their assets at a fire sale, and operate the infrastructure they're building today.

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
I'm sorry you live in fear of a SDHLV.  Yearly budget for that could be as low as 1.5 billion.  Not a bad deal for a 70-80 mT capability that you essentially have today. 

Don't forget the estimated $8B for development of a SDLV, if NASA does it. If SDLV is so viable, we should privatize it and let it compete against everyone else.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
No need to get defensive.  Simply pointing out the facts, I'm not sure why folks who want to defend this plan so hard get like this when simple statements of truth are made. 

Could a fully stocked MPLM-like vehicle with prop tug/bus-like system attached to it be launched on an EELV?  Maybe, however that requires *development*.  Note I never said anything about hardware sitting in a parking lot in Japan.  Please enjoy the rest of your day. 

Very well, then I confused your argument with Ben's. My bad. ISS resupply and crew rotation will need new spacecraft since the old one is going to be retired, sure. This was the plan all along. If NASA had been wise they would have made sure that at least one of the solutions used both a proven launch vehicle (Atlas/Delta) and a spacecraft built by a proven major aerospace contractor (Boeing, LM, NG). To keep them honest Orbital and SpaceX could also have gotten a piece of the pie, strictly tied to performance. Funding ULA's ISS resupply concepts ASAP would be a good move now.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I'm sorry you live in fear of a SDHLV.  Yearly budget for that could be as low as 1.5 billion.  Not a bad deal for a 70-80 mT capability that you essentially have today. 

Don't forget the estimated $8B for development of a SDLV, if NASA does it. If SDLV is so viable, we should privatize it and let it compete against everyone else.

Fine, "privatize" it.  Call it whatever you wish if that will make you feel better.  What is your plan for that to work anyway?

Clearly there is a development costs, these things don't grow on trees.  How much will development of the "commercial industry" cost?  At least 6 billion so far and you don't even know exactly what you are going to get for that.....
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

As far as the ISS goes, we absolutely should not do anything that can damage its long term viability. We do have redundancy with our international partners; you must remember that. Whatever unique capabilities provided by the Shuttle need to be taken into account and scheduled in to whatever remaining flights we have left. Personally, I would like to see some sort of Shuttle extension, but let's face it: with a 1.5% failure rate, flying the Shuttle is what we call in statistics a "game of short duration." You fly a short manifest, you have a chance of dodging the bullet. You fly a long manifest, sooner or later you're going to get nailed.

The administration isn't willing to take that chance. If Congress is, and is also willing to pony up the extra $2B/year for it, then great. Regardless, the Shuttle is going to end, and for two decades now analysts and committees that have looked at NASA have advocated just the free market approach proposed by the Administration. It's time for us to try. Frankly, it frees NASA up for the far more interesting work of building a planetary spaceship. I don't know about you, but given the choice to work on yet another LEO launcher or building mankind's first planetary spaceship and going down in history, I know what I would chose.


Bubbles are not a good thing...the very definition of them is that they are not sustainable....isn't that what this plan was *supposed* to do?  To make everything "sustainable"?

As for the "high risk" of the shuttle, I suggest you familiarize yourself better if at all possible with the process and procedures.  Quite honestly, that is the political misconception that yu have bought into.  Furhtermore, who is to say anything else will have a better than 98.5% success rate after 130 missions.  One thing is clear, even if that number is matched, it will be less capable. 

As for time to "try", this is a likely result:

1.  ISS goes for years without the resupply that was intended.
2.  Operations are not sustainable.  The crew is reduced, work onboard the ISS is not anywhere near what is advertised because of the short fall in ability to get experiments and spare parts there.
3.  Commercial providers continue to move the schedule to the right until the business case is no longer there.
4.  Congress and the Administration now start playing politics, blaming NASA for this and labeling commercial transport a failure.
5.  We end up with nothing and this is used to target the nebulous "technology development" program that will take us somewhere, someday in the future.
6.  NASA will be admonished by saying they cannot be trusted with the taxpayers money and the agency is a shell.
7.  Original mission complete????
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
1) Yet, the payloads that would be launched on the EELV's to supply ISS do not exist yet either and would still require development. 

2) I'm sorry you live in fear of a SDHLV.  Yearly budget for that could be as low as 1.5 billion.

3) Not a bad deal for a 70-80 mT capability that you essentially have today. 

1) This is correct, but only as long as you ignore HTV and ATV, which could be flown on EELVs.

2) 1.5 billion without flying and without payloads. And even this is a maybe.

3) No, it does not exist today, not even essentially. You are (correctly) pointing out the lack of US (!) spacecraft for EELVs (under 1) but you "forget" the lack of spacecraft for a SDHLV, besides the fact a SDHLV is not essentially existing today.

Analyst

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
1) Yet, the payloads that would be launched on the EELV's to supply ISS do not exist yet either and would still require development. 

2) I'm sorry you live in fear of a SDHLV.  Yearly budget for that could be as low as 1.5 billion.

3) Not a bad deal for a 70-80 mT capability that you essentially have today. 

1) This is correct, but only as long as you ignore HTV and ATV, which could be flown on EELVs.

2) 1.5 billion without flying and without payloads. And even this is a maybe.

3) No, it does not exist today, not even essentially. You are (correctly) pointing out the lack of US (!) spacecraft for EELVs (under 1) but you "forget" the lack of spacecraft for a SDHLV, besides the fact a SDHLV is not essentially existing today.

Analyst

1.  I'm not ignoring HTV and ATV.  However, the ISS agreement only calls for a certain flight rate, a flight rate that governs their production capbility.  If we want more is Europe and Japan going to pay for it?  No, the US taxpayer will that will result in even more money going oversees for a foreign country to do what we used to be able to do.

2.  The 1.5 billion is with flying.  Those would essentially be the fixed costs.  Obviously, like all traditional rockets, Atlas, Delta, etc whatever payload is flying is a seperate cost.  This is also how it is in the Shuttle today.

3.  Oh, it's a lot, lot closer than you are giving it credit for.  Certainly much closer than the proposed HLV that we have no idea what it will be, look like, what systems it will have, etc 20 years from now. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Bubbles are not a good thing...the very definition of them is that they are not sustainable....isn't that what this plan was *supposed* to do?  To make everything "sustainable"?

As I said, whether a bubble is bad or not depends on where you stand. Also, you never know whether a dynamic will evolve into a bubble or not until you try. You might end up with an industry with run-away growth, like semiconductors for over fifty years now.

As an American taxpayer and one standing outside of any potential bubble, I feel it's time to try.

As for the "high risk" of the shuttle, I suggest you familiarize yourself better if at all possible with the process and procedures.  Quite honestly, that is the political misconception that yu have bought into.  Furhtermore, who is to say anything else will have a better than 98.5% success rate after 130 missions.  One thing is clear, even if that number is matched, it will be less capable. 

Track record for shuttle is two catastrophic failures out of 130, and fourteen dead. Soyuz' track record is better, and you can trot out whatever statistical failure analysis you care to, the track record remains the same.

As for time to "try", this is a likely result:

1.  ISS goes for years without the resupply that was intended.
2.  Operations are not sustainable.  The crew is reduced, work onboard the ISS is not anywhere near what is advertised because of the short fall in ability to get experiments and spare parts there.
3.  Commercial providers continue to move the schedule to the right until the business case is no longer there.
4.  Congress and the Administration now start playing politics, blaming NASA for this and labeling commercial transport a failure.
5.  We end up with nothing and this is used to target the nebulous "technology development" program that will take us somewhere, someday in the future.
6.  NASA will be admonished by saying they cannot be trusted with the taxpayers money and the agency is a shell.
7.  Original mission complete????

Forget the others, I have more faith in Boeing/Bigelow than that. You paint an absolute worst case scenario that conveniently forgets our international partners simply for the sake of furthering your own argument. It's not a realistic outcome, and can be easily dismissed.

NASA stand to emerge from this stronger and more capable than ever. For those of who are interested in more than stunts and flags from our elite astronaut core, the commercial path is the only one possible. All we have to have is the courage to try.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Soyuz and Shuttle are compareable safety wise. Has been discussed here ad infinitum.

Analyst

Tags:
 

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