Shuttle was $2b a year if I used it or not. Under commercial we purchase a service.
Senator Brown notes ESA want to use Plum Brook. Bolden not aware, will check into it.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/29/2012 05:41 pmAnother highlight of the Senate appropriation hearing that I forgot to mention. At one point during the hearing, Mikulski shouted "I want to be pleased now!". But before you get the wrong idea, the reason that she said that is that she was responding to Bolden who said that both of them were pleased to be at the recent inauguration celebration at Wallops but she interjected with anger that she wanted to be pleased now and that she wanted the work on the pad to be completed at Wallops ASAP so that Orbital could launch cargo to the ISS. Context is everything... Reminds me of something Jeff Greason said about Congress a couple years ago.
Another highlight of the Senate appropriation hearing that I forgot to mention. At one point during the hearing, Mikulski shouted "I want to be pleased now!". But before you get the wrong idea, the reason that she said that is that she was responding to Bolden who said that both of them were pleased to be at the recent inauguration celebration at Wallops but she interjected with anger that she wanted to be pleased now and that she wanted the work on the pad to be completed at Wallops ASAP so that Orbital could launch cargo to the ISS. Context is everything...
I just finished watching the archived web cast. It seems like once again we have the Administration going off on a tangent regarding SLS/MPCV funding, and once again Congress will be more than willing to put them back on course, the course they all agreed to two years ago.What will it take to get the Administration to quit tweaking Congress's nose when it comes to NASA's priorities?
Quote from: Mark S on 03/29/2012 06:53 pmI just finished watching the archived web cast. It seems like once again we have the Administration going off on a tangent regarding SLS/MPCV funding, and once again Congress will be more than willing to put them back on course, the course they all agreed to two years ago.What will it take to get the Administration to quit tweaking Congress's nose when it comes to NASA's priorities?USA access to space is the priority and commercial crew is way to do.KBH priorities are not the nation's but pork for her area. It will be good for NASA when she is gone.
Don't make ignorant statements. Boeing is in Houston and CST efforts likely employ more than the handful working SLS in this area. In fact "her area" has been hit pretty hard relative to aerospace funded by "pork". Orion efforts are mainly in Colorado, Louisiana and Florida. If "USA access" was such the priority, then perhaps we should not have done what we did until we had a better footing.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/29/2012 08:15 pmDon't make ignorant statements. Boeing is in Houston and CST efforts likely employ more than the handful working SLS in this area. In fact "her area" has been hit pretty hard relative to aerospace funded by "pork". Orion efforts are mainly in Colorado, Louisiana and Florida. If "USA access" was such the priority, then perhaps we should not have done what we did until we had a better footing. That is water under the bridge and bringing it up now is just as ignorant. Same as ignoring KBH priorities. As for areas hit hard, Houston pales compared to Brevard County
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/29/2012 08:15 pmDon't make ignorant statements. Boeing is in Houston and CST efforts likely employ more than the handful working SLS in this area. In fact "her area" has been hit pretty hard relative to aerospace funded by "pork". Orion efforts are mainly in Colorado, Louisiana and Florida. If "USA access" was such the priority, then perhaps we should not have done what we did until we had a better footing. That is water under the bridge and it is not relevant and bringing it up now is just as ignorant. Same goes for ignoring what KBH real priorities are. As for areas hit hard, Houston pales compared to Brevard County
And since allowing the cancellation of Shuttle to proceed without a replacement is directly due to the Administration's policies, OV's comment regarding how we got where we are today is entirely relevant, not just "water under the bridge".
her motives are more likely to be out of genuine concern for NASA and our space program than for "pork".
Quote from: Mark S on 03/29/2012 08:42 pmAnd since allowing the cancellation of Shuttle to proceed without a replacement is directly due to the Administration's policies, OV's comment regarding how we got where we are today is entirely relevant, not just "water under the bridge".wrong, how we got here is NOT relevant, the past can't be changed.Sick and tired of people saying it is this Administration's policy, it was the previous one that initiated it and started the program termination. It was the past Administration, who put all eggs in the basket with CXP. It was the current Admin that started commercial crew. So your contempt for this administration is without merit.
Who are you to decide what is "not relevant"?
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Short-sighted and wrong. Quote Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.The Life of Reason (1905-1906) by George Santayana.
Quote from: Mark S on 03/30/2012 03:57 amShort-sighted and wrong. Quote Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.The Life of Reason (1905-1906) by George Santayana.Applicable to SLS
Quote from: Jim on 03/30/2012 04:19 amQuote from: Mark S on 03/30/2012 03:57 amShort-sighted and wrong. Quote Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.The Life of Reason (1905-1906) by George Santayana.Applicable to SLSYup, very applicable. The problem is that those who cannot remember the past tend to drag the rest of us along for their remedial lessons.~Jon
experience, expertise, and processes,
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: Jim on 03/29/2012 09:53 pmQuote from: Mark S on 03/29/2012 08:42 pmAnd since allowing the cancellation of Shuttle to proceed without a replacement is directly due to the Administration's policies, OV's comment regarding how we got where we are today is entirely relevant, not just "water under the bridge".wrong, how we got here is NOT relevant, the past can't be changed.Sick and tired of people saying it is this Administration's policy, it was the previous one that initiated it and started the program termination. It was the past Administration, who put all eggs in the basket with CXP. It was the current Admin that started commercial crew. So your contempt for this administration is without merit.Just a another pertinent fact you will likely consider irrelevant, but for those interested in historical details, I'll throw it into the mix here anyway. This is from the 2008 NASA Authorization Act. It specifically preserved the option for continuing shuttle beyond 2010 for the incoming Administration--which was of course unknown when the legislation was drafted and even when enacted on October 15, 2008. Subsequent to the election, this provision was very clearly pointed out to the Obama Transition Team for NASA (headed by Lori Garver) and they clearly understood they had the option to continue--and that the Congress would likely support that move, given its history, since 2005, of concern about "The Gap," especially with respect to the ability to support and sustain ISS. 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. The FY 2011 Budget Request the following year demonstrated THIS Administration's DECISION:Section 611(d) TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD PRECLUDE CONTINUED FLIGHT OF SPACE SHUTTLE PRIOR TO REVIEW BY THE INCOMING 2009 PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall terminate or suspend any activity of the Agency that, if continued between the date of enactment of this Act and April 30, 2009, would preclude the continued safe and effective flight of the Space Shuttle after fiscal year 2010 if the President inaugurated on January 20, 2009, were to make a determination to delay the Space Shuttle’s scheduled retirement.(2) REPORT ON IMPACT OF COMPLIANCE.—Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administratorshall provide a report to the Congress describing the expected budgetary and programmatic impacts from compliance with paragraph (1). The report shall include—(A) a summary of the actions taken to ensure the option to continue space shuttle flights beyond the endof fiscal year 2010 is not precluded before April 30, 2009;(B) an estimate of additional costs incurred by each specific action identified in the summary provided undersubparagraph (A);(C) a description of the proposed plan for allocating those costs among anticipated fiscal year 2009 appropriationsor existing budget authority;(D) a description of any programmatic impacts within the Space Operations Mission Directorate that would resultfrom reallocations of funds to meet the requirements of paragraph (1);(E) a description of any additional authority needed to enable compliance with the requirements of paragraph(1); and(F) a description of any potential disruption to the timely progress of development milestones in the preparationof infrastructure or work-force requirements for shuttle follow-on launch systems.122 STAT. 4798 PUBLIC LAW 110–422—OCT. 15, 2008Added Note: Since the above provision expired at the end of April 2009, NASA, knowing of the HSF Review, elected to take only non-irreversible termination activities pending the outcome of that review, and pending the Administration's formal response to that review as part of the FY 2011 Budget Request. Thus, the Bush-initiated termination "decision" could have been reversed as late as the Spring (and actually into the summer) of 2010. As added "insurance" for that option, the 2010 Act included language "protecting" ET-94 to enable the shuttle flow to ramp back up. Senator Hutchison also introduced a bill (S. 3068), the ‘‘Human Space Flight Capability Assurance and Enhancement Act of 2010", which provided for a recertification process for Shuttle, authorized funding for two flights per year for FY 2010, 2011 and 2012, and required a joint determination by the President and the Congress regarding a decision to terminate the shuttle. Rather than pursuing passage of that bill, it became the starting point on the Republican side of negotiations regarding the content of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, and the removal of those shuttle provisions became part of the "Compromise" that produced the 2010 Act.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/29/2012 11:02 pmWho are you to decide what is "not relevant"? There is no decision involved. Because isn't relevant any. Plain and simple. Going forward with crew access is not based on why or how the shuttle program ended.
OV-106 keeps pitting commercial crew against Shuttle but nobody else has ever suggested that there was such a trade-off.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/30/2012 02:22 pmOV-106 keeps pitting commercial crew against Shuttle but nobody else has ever suggested that there was such a trade-off. Hold on there. That is what people like you want to believe because you cannot see the forest for the trees. I have NEVER pitted the two against each other and instead time and time again suggested how Shuttle could actually enhance and increase the chances of success for commercial crew and other activities. The very reason I say what I say is because I want the best chance for commercial and why I use the terms like "value proposition" while people like yourself only moan about how not enough government money is being spent. I suggest very strongly you recant that because I will take you on relative to that point time and time again and, in the end, you WILL lose...and badly.
OK. I stand corrected then. But you keep saying that pro-commercial people all wanted Shuttle to end as quickly as possible which isn't true either. I can't speak for all commercial crew proponents but I am very glad that STS-134 and 135 were flown in 2011. I was supportive of adding these flights and of extending Shuttle into 2011 in order to close the cargo gap.
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.pptOV-106 keeps pitting commercial crew against Shuttle but nobody else has ever suggested that there was such a trade-off.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/30/2012 02:50 pmOK. I stand corrected then. But you keep saying that pro-commercial people all wanted Shuttle to end as quickly as possible which isn't true either. I can't speak for all commercial crew proponents but I am very glad that STS-134 and 135 were flown in 2011. I was supportive of adding these flights and of extending Shuttle into 2011 in order to close the cargo gap. yg,I have no idea who you are and personally do not care. When I say things about certain groups and/or organizations, you personally are not on the forefront of my mind. Sorry for the harsh reality. There were certain groups and/or organizations that wanted Shuttle out of the way as soon as possible. You can choose to believe that or not, again, I personally do not care. The reason was because their interests stood to profit, not the greater good. With that, there were all kinds of promises made, branding "commercial" something it was not yet ready to become and, now, many of those "advocates" are not nearly as vocal as they were. With those promises being made, and if we just look at this forum, do not try to tell me that the more gullible among us did also not jump on the bandwagon suggesting that if shuttle just "got out of the way", we would be in a much better position and on the verge of a utopia.Reality has not met the hype and rhetoric. So there you go. I suggest you leave it at that.
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
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.
Sally's charts pre-dated the final report. Pertinent language in the final report is at pages 50-51, where three shuttle scenarios were provided. The following is relevant to the third scenario option."• Scenario 3: Extend Shuttle to 2015 at Minimum Flight Rate. This scenario would extend the Shuttle at a minimum safe flight rate (nominally two flights per year) into FY 2015. Once the Shuttle is retired, the U.S. itself will no longer have the ability to launch astronauts into space, and will have to rely on the Russian Soyuz vehicle. That gap will persist until a new vehicle becomes available to transport crew to low-Earth orbit. Under the current program, the resulting gap is expected to be seven years or more. This scenario, if combined with a new crew launch capability that will be available by the middle of the 2010s, significantly reduces that gap, and retains U.S. ability to deliver astronauts to the ISS.
Scenario 2: Short-Term Support for the ISS. Space Shuttle retirement will have an impact on the ISS (described more fully in a subsequent section). Scenario 2 would add one additional Shuttle flight to provide some additional support for the ISS and ease the transition to commercial and international cargo flights. It could enhance early utilization of the ISS, offer an opportunity for providing more spare parts, and enable scientific experiments to be brought back to Earth. This additional Shuttle flight would not replace any of the planned international or commercial resupply flights.One obvious question is: “Why add just one flight?” Due to the planned retirement, the Shuttle’s external tank production line has been closed recently, and it is not costeffective to re-open it for a small number of new tanks. However, there is one spare external tank remaining in inventory. This scenario thus envisions using that tank and conducting one additional Shuttle flight in late FY 2011 or early FY 2012. This scenario requires that funds be put in the in FY 2011 and possibly FY 2012 budget for the one additional Shuttle flight. This minimal extension does not mitigate the workforce transition issues; it does extend U.S. human spaceflight capability, but only by a few months; and it does offer some additional short-term logistical support to the ISS.
That's fine. I am happy to leave it at that. But you have a tendancy to lump all commercial crew proponants into one pot assuming we all think the same way which of course isn't true.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/30/2012 03:11 pmThat's fine. I am happy to leave it at that. But you have a tendancy to lump all commercial crew proponants into one pot assuming we all think the same way which of course isn't true. Thankfully that is true, that not everyone thinks the same. Because, based on posts here, you don't get it because you have done it again. I *AM* a commercial advocate and that is why I speak about value propositions, making ISS more user-friendly, etc. Why I wanted a smoother transition and an integrated strategy. Do you understand what that means? My fairly informed presumption based on past conversations is that you do not. I can be a true commercial advocate and question why groups like the CSF, TPiS, etc are not saying the same things I am about creating the forces that would generate a more substantial market and just instead wanting government money.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 03/30/2012 03:03 pmSally's charts pre-dated the final report. Pertinent language in the final report is at pages 50-51, where three shuttle scenarios were provided. The following is relevant to the third scenario option."• Scenario 3: Extend Shuttle to 2015 at Minimum Flight Rate. This scenario would extend the Shuttle at a minimum safe flight rate (nominally two flights per year) into FY 2015. Once the Shuttle is retired, the U.S. itself will no longer have the ability to launch astronauts into space, and will have to rely on the Russian Soyuz vehicle. That gap will persist until a new vehicle becomes available to transport crew to low-Earth orbit. Under the current program, the resulting gap is expected to be seven years or more. This scenario, if combined with a new crew launch capability that will be available by the middle of the 2010s, significantly reduces that gap, and retains U.S. ability to deliver astronauts to the ISS. I guess the Administration went ahead with Scenario 2 then. QuoteScenario 2: Short-Term Support for the ISS. Space Shuttle retirement will have an impact on the ISS (described more fully in a subsequent section). Scenario 2 would add one additional Shuttle flight to provide some additional support for the ISS and ease the transition to commercial and international cargo flights. It could enhance early utilization of the ISS, offer an opportunity for providing more spare parts, and enable scientific experiments to be brought back to Earth. This additional Shuttle flight would not replace any of the planned international or commercial resupply flights.One obvious question is: “Why add just one flight?” Due to the planned retirement, the Shuttle’s external tank production line has been closed recently, and it is not costeffective to re-open it for a small number of new tanks. However, there is one spare external tank remaining in inventory. This scenario thus envisions using that tank and conducting one additional Shuttle flight in late FY 2011 or early FY 2012. This scenario requires that funds be put in the in FY 2011 and possibly FY 2012 budget for the one additional Shuttle flight. This minimal extension does not mitigate the workforce transition issues; it does extend U.S. human spaceflight capability, but only by a few months; and it does offer some additional short-term logistical support to the ISS.
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: jongoff on 03/30/2012 04:27 amQuote from: Jim on 03/30/2012 04:19 amQuote from: Mark S on 03/30/2012 03:57 amShort-sighted and wrong. Quote Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.The Life of Reason (1905-1906) by George Santayana.Applicable to SLSYup, very applicable. The problem is that those who cannot remember the past tend to drag the rest of us along for their remedial lessons.~JonThe past that I learn from is that HSF missions are accomplished by NASA owned systems. Every manned launch from the beginning of American space flight, heck even all non-American space flight since the dawn of the space age, has taken place on government owned systems.It is the "commercial" proponents who need to prove their case that a market will magically develop and be sustainable if NASA would just throw away all their experience, expertise, and processes, and not just rely on, but become 100% dependent on, these "commercial" providers. It is an extraordinary leap of faith that deserves full scrutiny and is justifiably the subject of skepticism and demands for proof.Mark S.
I was more hinting at NASA's recent (ie past 30 years) inability to complete a new launch vehicle or manned spaceflight vehicle development program... But you're right Mark, unlike every other transportation form in history, manned spaceflight is obviously something that can only be done by the government. It's obviously incumbent on commercial spaceflight developers to prove that NASA doesn't have some magic pixie dust that only allows government programs to succeed. That's *totally* the right lesson to draw from history...
So is COTS, CRS, CCDev, etc a government program? Where are the non-NASA customers? Where are the customers and the investors to provide funding in order to free said "commercial spaceflight developers" from NASA money, requirements, etc.?
It is easy to say something is better, but it can only be better with a certain entity's money that one is also trying to paint as a drag-on-everything. And say one needs more of it.
As for schedule slips, "commercial spaceflight developers" are hardly immune to that as well. Clearly.
Mark S was making a ridiculous point, and I was just pointing out how ridiculous it was.~Jon
Quote from: jongoff on 03/30/2012 04:41 pmMark S was making a ridiculous point, and I was just pointing out how ridiculous it was.~JonIt was not a ridiculous point, it was stating a fact. In the history of space flight, only government programs have launched people into orbit. Until that changes, the burden is on the commercial providers to prove that they have what it takes to manage a space program, or even just a "simple" LEO launch service.We threw away what we had in the hopes that an unproven concept would be a suitable replacement. So far it's not looking so great.Mark S.
Until that changes, the burden is on the commercial providers to prove that they have what it takes to manage a space program, or even just a "simple" LEO launch service.
So far it's not looking so great.
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.
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: 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 $461 million for Mars robotic science.
It seems that no matter how many times we meet with the NASA Administrator, and no matter what commitments he makes in public or in private, it ultimately falls to the Congress, to this Committee, to keep the SLS moving forward. I wish it were not so but it's where we are.
Well for what it's worth I believe Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) was speaking just prior, then another male voice that was not introduced starts speaking. I assume it was someone on the CJS subcommittee, possibly Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) judging by his accent and his strong support for SLS, but maybe not.Anyway, thanks for your keen insight into the American political process. I'm sure you have a better understanding of US Senate politics than I do.Update: Yes, the speaker was confirmed as Sen. Shelby at the end of his address to the committee.
...Can't wait for the announcement of commercial crew in 2019
Glad to see the increase for commercial crew in the draft bill.
Quote from: spacetraveler on 04/19/2012 01:38 amGlad to see the increase for commercial crew in the draft bill.It is still over US$ 300 million below the requested amount.
We also provide commercial crew with a $119 million increase over last year to allow NASA to select at least two competitors that could provide access to the International Space Station by 2017.