NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[MsWZ]

Does anyone know the impact of a year-long CR for NASA's current programs?

The word to many has been that a year-long CR may be passed for FY11 in place of a budget (to avoid complications after Dec 2nd when the budget expires) and/or a short-term CR until agreements on a budget can be made.

If a year-long CR does pass it locks in program funding at FY10 levels, any extension through a CR would offer a prorated amount of funding at FY10 levels for whatever the duration of the passed CR means.

[93143]

everybody knows anyway, that Atlas Phase 2 would be less expensive to develop than even a DIRECT J-130

It probably wouldn't be quite as cheap as that old paper said, even accounting for aerospace inflation.  It was not originally envisioned as a manned launcher.

There's also the fact that NASA would have to reorient around the new paradigm, and scrap or mothball the Saturn/Shuttle infrastructure.  According to the Augustine Commission's report, NASA estimated the cost of this as between $3B and $11B, though who knows if that's accurate...

[yg1968]

Does anyone know the impact of a year-long CR for NASA's current programs?

The word to many has been that a year-long CR may be passed for FY11 in place of a budget (to avoid complications after Dec 2nd when the budget expires) and/or a short-term CR until agreements on a budget can be made.

If a year-long CR does pass it locks in program funding at FY10 levels, any extension through a CR would offer a prorated amount of funding at FY10 levels for whatever the duration of the passed CR means.

A continuing resolution could modified to ensure that it works with the 2010 NASA Authorization bill assuming that Congress was willing to do so. If another short term CR is adopted during the lame duck session, Congress would probably not bother doing so.

But if a series of CR are passed, at some point, Congress could decide to modify the CR and make sure that it works with the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. It seems unlikely that anything will get resolved during the lame duck session. We may have to wait until early 2011 (January or February) to see what happens. But you can read 51D Mascot's posts on this subject. He knows more about this than anybody else.

[manboy]

What elements from CxP are going to survive ion ?

My predictions are Orion, J-2X engine and the Constellation Space Suit. The reason why I think Orion and the J-2X will be saved because they're already so far into their contracts which have been at least moderatly succesul. The Spacesuit because they haven't run into any problems and I believe they've made all their target dates thus far.

Also does anyone know the name of the new program?

[alexw]

everybody knows anyway, that Atlas Phase 2 would be less expensive to develop than even a DIRECT J-130

It probably wouldn't be quite as cheap as that old paper said, even accounting for aerospace inflation.  It was not originally envisioned as a manned launcher.

   Which old paper, the CBO one?
   Barr and Kutter 2010 write "The original estimates were for a Design, Development, Test & Evaluation (DDT&E) cost of $2.3B. Though assumptions regarding EELV-like development may need to be reassessed, and the need to account for cost escalation over the past 6 years is certainly required, the formation of ULA simplifies the Phase 2 development due to the ULA Decatur factory, with both tooling, and transportation infrastructure to create 5m tanks. Although ULA has not yet undertaken a revised cost estimate, we believe that EELV Phase II should have a compelling cost advantage compared to other vehicle options in the same performance class."
 
    Translation: in the early 2000s, LockMart figured $2.3 billion, back when it would have meant on top of everything else,  (brand new?) 5.4m core tooling in Colorado, and a transport method to get the much larger cores (c.f. 3.8m Atlas V) to Florida; for example, an investment in very big aircraft. Now, after the ULA merger, the relevant tooling is already sitting in Decatur, already using a barge infrastructure. Two of the most costly problems have already been solved and paid for.
    The remaining tasks are the tankage and thrust structure and avionics, which would be closely derived from two vehicles long in production, now right next to each other, the complete design of which didn't cost that much in the first place. In other words, the Phase II booster core may be about the cheapest, simplest, highest-confidence performance upgrade that anyone could make world-wide. I would guess that it would be even cheaper than ACES.

   As for man-rating, note that Zenit intended for manned flight from the start, both for Energiya as an LRB and on its own as a Soyuz replacement. In some sense, Phase '0' is a somewhat smaller Zenit, Phase 2 a somewhat larger Zenit.

There's also the fact that NASA would have to reorient around the new paradigm, and scrap or mothball the Saturn/Shuttle infrastructure.  According to the Augustine Commission's report, NASA estimated the cost of this as between $3B and $11B, though who knows if that's accurate...

   Yes. The booster core hardware isn't the issue. The question is what NASA would need to do to make use of it.

 -Alex

[copernicus]

  As for NASA FY 2011 appropriations, a few comments. 
First, if you care whether NASA is funded at $19 Billion in FY 2011, rather than $17 Billion, give your Congressman and Senators a call.  Ask them to do their job, and pass the appropriations bills before adjourning.  Ask them why the next Congress should be doing their work for them.  As I wrote in an earlier post, they were hired by us to work until January 2011. 
   Second, this Congress is a pathetic example of lazy government.  Check the "Thomas" site, run by the Library of Congress, and look at the status of Appropriations Bills.  You will see a mostly empty chart.  This is possibly the worst performance of any recent Congress when it comes to performing their duty of passing budget bills. 
   Third, the incompetence of this Congress becomes clear when one examines the course of NASA's budget bills.  The House passed a wimp version of appropriations in June.  The Senate passed a slightly less wimpy version in late July.  Since then, the Congress has taken almost 3 months of recess!   In the few weeks that they have been at their posts, members of the House and Senate have not acted on passing the respective appropriations bills, let alone appoint a conference committee to hammer out a conference bill for both houses to vote on. 
   The assumption by this Congress that the next Congress should do their work for them is really appalling.  The next Congress will have their own work to do.  In addition, as I wrote earlier, there is the real threat that if the next Congress is called on to finish this Congress' work, then we might see a 20% cut in funding for NASA in FY 2011.  Add to that the possibility that the language in the 2010 Authorization Law will not be considered in a "hurry-up" FY 2011 budget bill. 

[Warren Platts]

everybody knows anyway, that Atlas Phase 2 would be less expensive to develop than even a DIRECT J-130

... as that old paper said, ...

Here is the link to that old paper.

Barr and Kutter (2010)

[JohnFornaro]

Here is the link to that old paper.

What?  A paper written in 2010 is already old?  Then I must be a dinosaur...

[Ben the Space Brit]

Here is the link to that old paper.

What?  A paper written in 2010 is already old?  Then I must be a dinosaur...

He's referring to 93143's description of the paper.  He isn't calling it old himself.

[TimL]

>Here is the link to that old paper.
>Barr and Kutter (2010)

Interesting read, don't know how I missed this one.

IMHO, while it sounds doable, would provide more jobs and spead money across the industry base, I can't see the representatives from the pork regions supporting this approach. They will try to carry the SD-HLV until it strangles NASA.

[93143]

I was talking about the 2004 estimate.

I'm not sure what exactly I remember reading, but I wouldn't have deliberately called a 2010 paper "old", and in any case there isn't a new cost estimate.

[Warren Platts]

I was talking about the 2004 estimate.

They say the 2004 estimate was $2.3B, and that Delta IV cost $3.5B and that Atlas V cost $2B to develop. Reading between the lines, they're basically saying it would cost in the neighborhood of $3B to develop a Phase 2 HLV. Not bad...

[pathfinder_01]

I was talking about the 2004 estimate.

They say the 2004 estimate was $2.3B, and that Delta IV cost $3.5B and that Atlas V cost $2B to develop. Reading between the lines, they're basically saying it would cost in the neighborhood of $3B to develop a Phase 2 HLV. Not bad...

And that would fit within the current budget.

[RBSB]

Just as importantly EELV Phase 2 would utilize existing infrastructure for production. This would make it affordable while also enhancing America’s industrial base which is currently in shambles due to the extremely low rate of production.  Granted more affordable launch won’t feed the incumbent gravy train. It will force (enable) a transition to NASA focusing on the Exploration mission.

[RBSB]

everybody knows anyway, that Atlas Phase 2 would be less expensive to develop than even a DIRECT J-130

It probably wouldn't be quite as cheap as that old paper said, even accounting for aerospace inflation.  It was not originally envisioned as a manned launcher.

Certainly a lot has changed since Atlas Phase 2 was originally proposed in 2004.  Inflation naturally suggests higher prices.  Where as Atlas Phase 2 assumed Michoud production with the formation of ULA the Phase 2 5m diameter tank tooling is already producing tanks for Delta resulting in a substantial cost reduction.

If Orion truly flies on a Delta IV HLV in 2013 is human rating of EELV Phase 2 required?  Is human rating of the EELV Phase 2 particularly difficult following the presumed Delta IV human rating?

[93143]

And that would fit within the current budget.

Yes, it would.  However, the rest of my earlier post is relevant:

There's also the fact that NASA would have to reorient around the new paradigm, and scrap or mothball the Saturn/Shuttle infrastructure.  According to the Augustine Commission's report, NASA estimated the cost of this as between $3B and $11B, though who knows if that's accurate...

Even if it's not (and to paraphrase the SD-haters, when has NASA ever overestimated a project's cost?  Though here there might be a motivation), the fact remains that it appears politically difficult in terms of both selection and subsequent funding; ie: it doesn't matter if it fits within the current budget because even if it gets selected, NASA's budget will be nearly defenseless and we'll be wondering what kind of exploration we can fit into a $12B/year top line or something...

Also, keeping the Authorization language in mind, can Phase II be upgraded to 130 mT simply by adding a third stage or growing ACES?  Phase III is the official plan for that level of performance, and then you're in the same ballpark as SDLV or worse even without NASA's 'reorientation' costs...

[Jim]

If Orion truly flies on a Delta IV HLV in 2013 is human rating of EELV Phase 2 required?  Is human rating of the EELV Phase 2 particularly difficult following the presumed Delta IV human rating?

No "human rating" is needed for an unmanned launch in 2013

[pathfinder_01]

If Orion truly flies on a Delta IV HLV in 2013 is human rating of EELV Phase 2 required?  Is human rating of the EELV Phase 2 particularly difficult following the presumed Delta IV human rating?

No "human rating" is needed for an unmanned launch in 2013

Does unmaned space capsule, vulcan rating or any other rating cout?

[Warren Platts]

If Orion truly flies on a Delta IV HLV in 2013 is human rating of EELV Phase 2 required?  Is human rating of the EELV Phase 2 particularly difficult following the presumed Delta IV human rating?

No "human rating" is needed for an unmanned launch in 2013

Wow, you really think they could do it that fast? Seriously!

[alexw]

Certainly a lot has changed since Atlas Phase 2 was originally proposed in 2004.  Inflation naturally suggests higher prices.  Where as Atlas Phase 2 assumed Michoud production with the formation of ULA the Phase 2 5m diameter tank tooling is already producing tanks for Delta resulting in a substantial cost reduction.

   Thank you for mentioning that -- I'd been under the impression that Phase II originally envisioned keeping production in Colorado, but [Sowers 2005] indeed says Michoud, in order to use the (then-new) friction stir welding.

   Strictly speaking, Phase II is supposed to come after Phase I -- but I doubt that the price Barr & Kutter are referring to includes ACES development! Which is the far more useful piece of the two.
  -Alex