NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[Warren Platts]

Zegler and Kutter (2010) say the cost for ACES would be approximately $3.5B:

ACES upper stage estimated to be approximately $3.5B including the tanker variant, production rate capability increases and engine upgrades. No completely new upper stage engine is required until Mars operations begin though a line-replacement for the venerable RL10 is advised merely to enable the high production rates that will be demanded. The entire booster system remain as-is for the near-term. The development of a new LO2/kerosene booster engine to supplement the RD-180 is strongly encouraged but is not required to be complete before 2020 at the earliest. The depot evolution is estimated to cost, including the deployment of operational Centaur and ACES depots at LEO and L2 approximately $3B. LEO propellant donor vehicle development would be borne by the suppliers. The key here is that developmental costs for many elements are diluted across both NASA and DoD budgets. We continue to believe that a very substantial permanently crewed lunar base is within our grasp and is mandatory before we venture to Mars. With the depot system in place the only remaining transport elements required for lunar surface exploration are the Ascender/habitat and Cargo Delivery modules. With the proposed Dual Thrust Axis Lander concept the lander design uses the ACES tank as the descent system and a substantial portion of lander development costs are avoided- allowing a focus on equipment for long-duration stays on the surface. The development of the lander/ascender elements is estimated to be approximately $5B. The basic surface system development is estimated to be approximately twice that: $10B. In summary, the entire depot based [Lunar] architecture including all payload elements, payload fairings, habitats, etc. is estimated to cost less than $40B with an IOC for the initial elements in 2016.

(my emphasis)

[Ben the Space Brit]

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!

As I understand it, Lockheed Martin and the Orion Program have both given FY2014 for flying an Orion qualification unit of some kind on a D-IVH.  This will include a test of the nominal seperation of the LAS and as many other Orion systems as possible.  It will not include a re-entry or recovery test (which I imagine will be carried out on the Orion-1 mission).

There is a big difference between the Delta-IVH and an HLV.  The Delta-IVH to be used in this mission will likely be a stock vehicle with RS-68A and the standard 5m upper stage with 1 x RL-10B-2.  The HLV will likely still be a few years away at that point.

[renclod]

... FY2014 for flying an Orion ...test ...  It will not include a re-entry or recovery ...

Where did you get that ? Goofy.

[Jim]

As I understand it, Lockheed Martin and the Orion Program have both given FY2014 for flying an Orion qualification unit of some kind on a D-IVH.  This will include a test of the nominal seperation of the LAS and as many other Orion systems as possible.  It will not include a re-entry or recovery test (which I imagine will be carried out on the Orion-1 mission).

It includes reentry and recovery

[HappyMartian]

As I understand it, Lockheed Martin and the Orion Program have both given FY2014 for flying an Orion qualification unit of some kind on a D-IVH.  This will include a test of the nominal seperation of the LAS and as many other Orion systems as possible.  It will not include a re-entry or recovery test (which I imagine will be carried out on the Orion-1 mission).

It includes reentry and recovery

See:

Well, we might see it fly after all.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20101125/NEWS02/11250311/1007/Lockheed+plans+Orion+test+flight

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20101124/BREAKINGNEWS/101124037/1007/NEWS02/2013+test+flight+could+lead+to+mission+to+asteroid++moon+by+2015

Cheers!

[JohnFornaro]

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.

Well I hear that, and I read the article, but dang if it doesn't have a date in it.  So you sorta have to derive the date based on its content.  Just a pet peeve about the presentation of info without a time clear context.

[yg1968]

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=63c5863f-8419-4aa3-9474-cef769b345f3&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a

Holdren will be there tommorow.

[sdsds]

Dear Senator Cantwell,

John Holdren will testify tomorrow (Dec 1) at a full hearing of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee regarding the 2010 NASA Authorization Act.

NASA's space exploration program is at a crossroads, and as you know, Washington State and its residents have a vital interest in the aerospace industry.  I am writing to ask that you take an active role in questioning Mr Holdren subsequent to his testimony.

The space exploration program authorized by Congress is substantially different from the program outlined in the fiscal year 2011 budget proposal from the White House.  Although the administration's budget for NASA was not widely vetted before being proposed, Mr Holdren is Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and must certainly have been a participant in its formulation. 

I urge you to directly ask Mr Holdren if he fully supports development of the Space Launch System outlined in the Act, even though his 2011 budget proposal included nothing like it.  I urge you to directly ask Mr Holdren if he fully supports development of the Multipurpose Crew Vehicle outlined in the Act, even though his 2011 budget proposal included nothing like it.  Finally, I urge you to ask Mr Holdren if the funding levels authorized by the Act for Exploration Technology Development are sufficient to enable the kinds of exploration he personally envisions for our country's future.

Because aerospace and advanced technology are defining characteristics of Washington State your voice is vital to this discussion.  Because there is no NASA center here, you can be an engaged yet impartial participant in the process which, if it goes well, will lead to a future for NASA which maintains our country's leadership in aerospace pursuits.  Please do not overlook this opportunity to do that!

Sincerely,

[FinalFrontier]

http://stgnews.com/archive/360
.....
“Today’s meeting confirms that we are in a long-term fight over the future of NASA’s manned space flight program,” Bishop said. “While I appreciate Administrator Charlie Bolden and Assistant Administrator Lori Garver’s willingness to meet with us, I remain very concerned that NASA continues to delay the transition from Constellation systems toward the new heavy-lift program while they needlessly explore private start-up technologies that remain unproven, require more money and are unfit for human-rated space travel. During the meeting, I expressed my disappointment that both Bolden and Garver continue to slow-walk the plans required by the NASA Reauthorization Act.[/i]

Perhaps if Congressional folks want to avoid "disappointment that both Bolden and Garver continue to slow-walk the plans required by the NASA Reauthorization Act" they should place some strongly worded phone calls to the White House. The White House seems to have completely missed the critical message of the Congressional elections: Folks are unhappy with the President's leadership.

Maybe some senior Congressional folks, or a former POTUS, could privately point out to the current POTUS that the White House's active and obstinate resistance to the bipartisan Congressional direction chosen for NASA means the President will continue to lose political influence within his own party and also with Americans in the other important party. America and the rest of the world are facing some pretty serious problems. A politically narrow and isolated President isn't going to be able to provide the leadership needed to help solve some of those problems.


Cheers!

I can almost guarantee you that it won't change anything. POTUS and this white house have made it very clear they will do what they want regardless.

[FinalFrontier]

inability or unwillingness to form a robust support plan for a fully utilized International Space Station have been and remain as ongoing problems for NASA

When has this been a problem?  There is one, CRS and commercial crew.

Which has yet to fly an actual mission to ISS................

[FinalFrontier]

Yeah, but it would cut MSFC and ATK out of the deal.... Shelby and Hatch ain't gonna let that happen.

Any HLV keeps MSFC in the mix and an EELV derivative means more for AL

But I am not sure Shelby will see it that way.

[FinalFrontier]

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=63c5863f-8419-4aa3-9474-cef769b345f3&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a

Holdren will be there tommorow.

Here we go again with the hearings.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

Here we go again with the hearings.

Surprised? Don't tell me you thought the "compromise" was going to end it.

[JohnFornaro]

Surprised?

Not really.  Like the Grateful Dead mentioned: "It gets to wearin' thin", even tho, "sometimes the light is shinin' on me".

[marsavian]

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=63c5863f-8419-4aa3-9474-cef769b345f3&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a

Webcast up and starting now

[marsavian]

Senator Hutchison says that if necessary more words will be put into law to get SLS compliance.

[marsavian]

Senator Vitter claims NASA stonewalling over new direction. Intends to put clarifying language in any new CR.

[marsavian]

Senator Nelson says too much evidence of NASA/Administration in past not helping to get consensus.

[marsavian]

Holdren, Robinson and Chaplain give opening statements.

[Namechange User]

Holdren, Robinson and Chaplain give opening statements.

And those statements tell you why I fear a year from now we won't have any capability, ISS will be at a 3-person crew and everything will be at the cliff with too much momentum to keep it from going over.  I really hope I'm wrong.