Quote from: yg1968 on 03/19/2023 12:45 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/16/2023 02:54 pmhttps://twitter.com/wehavemeco/status/1636374860724305926Quote🎙️ @CaseyDreier of @exploreplanets joins me on the podcast to talk about the NASA FY2024 budget request. Always a great conversation with Casey, and this time there is a ton to discuss around Artemis, ISS, and planetary science. Have a listen!https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/242I completely disagree with their take on the Commercial LEO Destinations program. Right now, there is a UAE astronaut on ISS that paid Axiom for their 6 month stay which proves that there is indeed a market for LEO outside of NASA.Phil McAlister estimates that Commercial LEO Destinations services will cost about $1B per year (including commercial crew and cargo). Incidentally, the Commercial LEO Destinations program was fully funded in FY23 (at $224.3M).Having said that, I wish that NASA would pursue artificial gravity more aggressively. It's only a stretch goal under the Commercial LEO Destinations program.One person is not a significant market. If there is a big enough market, NASA shouldn't need to spend billions of dollars on it
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/16/2023 02:54 pmhttps://twitter.com/wehavemeco/status/1636374860724305926Quote🎙️ @CaseyDreier of @exploreplanets joins me on the podcast to talk about the NASA FY2024 budget request. Always a great conversation with Casey, and this time there is a ton to discuss around Artemis, ISS, and planetary science. Have a listen!https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/242I completely disagree with their take on the Commercial LEO Destinations program. Right now, there is a UAE astronaut on ISS that paid Axiom for their 6 month stay which proves that there is indeed a market for LEO outside of NASA.Phil McAlister estimates that Commercial LEO Destinations services will cost about $1B per year (including commercial crew and cargo). Incidentally, the Commercial LEO Destinations program was fully funded in FY23 (at $224.3M).Having said that, I wish that NASA would pursue artificial gravity more aggressively. It's only a stretch goal under the Commercial LEO Destinations program.
https://twitter.com/wehavemeco/status/1636374860724305926Quote🎙️ @CaseyDreier of @exploreplanets joins me on the podcast to talk about the NASA FY2024 budget request. Always a great conversation with Casey, and this time there is a ton to discuss around Artemis, ISS, and planetary science. Have a listen!https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/242
🎙️ @CaseyDreier of @exploreplanets joins me on the podcast to talk about the NASA FY2024 budget request. Always a great conversation with Casey, and this time there is a ton to discuss around Artemis, ISS, and planetary science. Have a listen!
NASA is not spending billions on Commercial LEO Destinations (far from it). There was only one opportunity for a 6 month stay on the ISS. It resulted from a Soyuz seat that NASA obtained through Axiom. There are no other opportunities for 6 month stays on the ISS.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/20/2023 11:43 pmNASA is not spending billions on Commercial LEO Destinations (far from it). There was only one opportunity for a 6 month stay on the ISS. It resulted from a Soyuz seat that NASA obtained through Axiom. There are no other opportunities for 6 month stays on the ISS.So far, NASA seems to have spent about $415 M directly on CLD. Have there been any more awards? https://www.space.com/nasa-private-space-station-design-contractsI know that we can also consider some of the CCP and CRS money as supporting CLD, but I'm interested in stuff explicitly directed at CLD.With respect to 6-month ISS stays: Starliner has a fifth seat and Boeing has rights to sell it. I have no insight as to how this was supposed to work.
I don't think that NASA has any plans to use Boeing's 5th seat, I am guessing that it will be used for cargo instead (that's essentially what they did with Dragon's extra seats).
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/21/2023 05:25 pmI don't think that NASA has any plans to use Boeing's 5th seat, I am guessing that it will be used for cargo instead (that's essentially what they did with Dragon's extra seats). I was not referring to NASA's plans. I was referring to early reports that Boeing has the option to sell rides in that fifth seat on NASA's CCP flights. https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/boeing-space-taxi-has-tourist-seat-1.2770088The situation with the extra Crew Dragon seats is different. NASA required SpaceX to redesign the seat layout to minimize G forces on occupants during landing, and this forced the removal of the extra 3 seats, leaving the volume and mass available for cargo. I think NASA uses the space in the Starliner that was originally occupied by the other two seats (6 and 7) the same way.
Quote from: VSECOTSPE on 03/22/2023 11:55 pmQuote from: Marcia SmithAs an example, the Artemis IV mission would be “substantially delayed” if NASA was capped at FY2022.Alternatively, if the agency was cut 22 percent, NASA would have to “restructure or terminate currently ongoing major development work for Artemis IV” including Gateway, SLS Block 1B, Mobile Launcher-2 and the second SpaceX Human Landing System contract, and prioritize continuation of Artemis II and Artemis III “with potential delays to those flights.”https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nelson-details-devastating-impacts-if-nasa-funding-capped-at-fy2022-level-or-less/Nelson assumes a 22% cut from FY23 which seems unlikely. In any event, here is the entire letter:https://spacepolicyonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Nelson-to-DeLauro-FY24.pdf
Quote from: Marcia SmithAs an example, the Artemis IV mission would be “substantially delayed” if NASA was capped at FY2022.Alternatively, if the agency was cut 22 percent, NASA would have to “restructure or terminate currently ongoing major development work for Artemis IV” including Gateway, SLS Block 1B, Mobile Launcher-2 and the second SpaceX Human Landing System contract, and prioritize continuation of Artemis II and Artemis III “with potential delays to those flights.”https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nelson-details-devastating-impacts-if-nasa-funding-capped-at-fy2022-level-or-less/
As an example, the Artemis IV mission would be “substantially delayed” if NASA was capped at FY2022.Alternatively, if the agency was cut 22 percent, NASA would have to “restructure or terminate currently ongoing major development work for Artemis IV” including Gateway, SLS Block 1B, Mobile Launcher-2 and the second SpaceX Human Landing System contract, and prioritize continuation of Artemis II and Artemis III “with potential delays to those flights.”
NASA's Science Mission Directorate is doing a town hall this morning on its FY24 budget proposal (announced on short notice.) Available on YouTube starting at 10:30 am EDT.
Town hall is primarily talking up all the great things in the NASA science budget. The submitted questions, though, show anxieties about that budget (and these are only those at the top of the list).
On the pause in GDC, Nicky Fox says she has heard "tremendous" support for the mission from heliophysics decadal survey panels. Want to work hard to see what a pause for the mission looks like and how to get back on track.
Jeff Gramling suggests Mars Sample Return is particularly affected by supply chain issues, along with inflation and shrinking supplier base; difference sin costs of components greater than in the past. Doing more on MSR to get arms around its costs.
NASa's Lori Glaze defends decision to delay VERITAS at least three years: resilience of budget was exhausted by other issues (but not, she adds, MSR). Support for VERITAS in the community is very clear, but likely means delaying next Discovery and SIMPLEx calls.
Town hall ends with regrets they could not get to all questions and a promise of a followup session. (Perhaps spending nearly 45 minutes of the hour-long event on slide presentations was unwise.)
Senate Commerce Cmte hearing on NASA's FY2024 budget request with NASA Admin Bill Nelson should start momentarily.Watch on NASA TV or the committee's website.
Under the terms of the deal, Republicans agreed to extend the government’s borrowing authority for two years — pushing the threat of default beyond the 2024 elections, as Biden had demanded, according to a source familiar with the agreement.In return, the White House agreed to freeze — or accept small cuts — in nondefense spending for 2024, which could affect discretionary programs favored by Democrats. Spending in 2025 would be increased by 1 percent, and no caps would apply in 2026 and beyond, the source indicated.
Biden, McCarthy reach debt ceiling deal to avoid default:https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4023783-debt-ceiling-deal-reached/Quote from: the Hill articleUnder the terms of the deal, Republicans agreed to extend the government’s borrowing authority for two years — pushing the threat of default beyond the 2024 elections, as Biden had demanded, according to a source familiar with the agreement.In return, the White House agreed to freeze — or accept small cuts — in nondefense spending for 2024, which could affect discretionary programs favored by Democrats. Spending in 2025 would be increased by 1 percent, and no caps would apply in 2026 and beyond, the source indicated.