My initial take on the opening remarks were that the Senator's were going after the SLS/SDHLV avenue and why hadn't work started already. Why was NASA soliciting 13 companies for heavy lift studies when congress has already mandated that shuttle technology will be used for the SLS as has been signed by the prez and is now law. The answers from the other side really sidestepped any direct answers and will continue to research the HLV for the next few years.
Quote from: TimL on 12/01/2010 06:06 pmMy initial take on the opening remarks were that the Senator's were going after the SLS/SDHLV avenue and why hadn't work started already. Why was NASA soliciting 13 companies for heavy lift studies when congress has already mandated that shuttle technology will be used for the SLS as has been signed by the prez and is now law. The answers from the other side really sidestepped any direct answers and will continue to research the HLV for the next few years. Shuttle technology is to be used to the extent possible. It does not prevent NASA from studing other forms of heavy lift......
Shuttle technology is to be used to the extent possible. It does not prevent NASA from studing other forms of heavy lift......
So riddle me this. You seemingly are implying your interpretation of the law is that an HLV should be a SDLV with some technologies (likely J-2) from CxP. So, if that is the law, and the witness' said over and over again it was their intent to follow said law, what is the point in spending time and money to "study" other forms?
The point is either to have something ready when SLS crashes and burns or have cheaper Options should the law allow. If I had to build an rocket and there were cheaper less restrained alternative available, I would choose them. SLS is about keeping people employed and pork in the right hands more than getting the best deal for NASA, Exploration and the Tax Payer.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 12/01/2010 06:19 pmThe point is either to have something ready when SLS crashes and burns or have cheaper Options should the law allow. If I had to build an rocket and there were cheaper less restrained alternative available, I would choose them. SLS is about keeping people employed and pork in the right hands more than getting the best deal for NASA, Exploration and the Tax Payer.Of course that is your opinion, laced with insults and hopes for failure.You're basing them on empty claims because you have no functional technical or contracutal basis to compare an EELV-based HLV versus a SDLV-based HLV. The reason of course being because those details are unknown on how they would be executed, certainly to the public at large. So you are making assumptions and trying to pass them off as facts using unnecessary derogatory comments in the process. Now I won't go far as to say elected officials in congress do not care about employment in their districts. Obviously they do and that is the nature of things if you are to get government money. That said, you should probably throttle back on the dogma you have been placing in nearly every thread suggesting it is all with malicious intent by all involved.
Robinson (in the context of JWST's mega-overruns) really made the point that she favored SLS evolutionary development and not overestimating the extent to which heritage systems can be cheaply reused. The latter is something that applies equally to Shuttle/CxP-derived and EELV-derived (i.e. Phase II) systems. Sounds reassuring, and I guess we'll see if they follow it when the 90-day report comes out...
No I don't hope for failure, I just don't see success down the current path. The heavy lift is underfunded. It lacks payloads. It isn't economizing on anything at a time when economizing needs to happen. Maybe it will pull through. But one thing I am not is dogmatic. I prefer things that work and so far NASA has not been able to come up with a shuttle replacement for years. That alone is not a good sign.
Quote from: TimL on 12/01/2010 04:50 pmPretty much a waste of time...are you following the law, yes we're following the law, you better follow the law, we're following the law...I think there were actually some interesting pieces of information. While maybe not "breaking news", important nonetheless. 2. Another is a bit more subtle. It was in response to a question asked by Senator Nelson and the "legal clarity" NASA lawyers have given NASA administration regarding certain issues. I found it quite interesting the response the CFO gave and the "pecking order" that was defined and supposedly why. Personally, I found that to speak volumes.
Pretty much a waste of time...are you following the law, yes we're following the law, you better follow the law, we're following the law...
Quote from: simonbp on 12/01/2010 06:47 pmRobinson (in the context of JWST's mega-overruns) really made the point that she favored SLS evolutionary development and not overestimating the extent to which heritage systems can be cheaply reused. The latter is something that applies equally to Shuttle/CxP-derived and EELV-derived (i.e. Phase II) systems. Sounds reassuring, and I guess we'll see if they follow it when the 90-day report comes out...and when does the 90 day study start? Is it dependent on the appropriations?
It will be interesting to get 51D Mascot's views on how he viewed this hearing. It seems to have been a very productive hearing. Hopefully the next CR will contain the right language in order to implement the NASA Authorization bill.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-242) is amended by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and inserting `December 18, 2010'.
Quote from: OV-106 on 12/01/2010 05:25 pmQuote from: TimL on 12/01/2010 04:50 pmPretty much a waste of time...are you following the law, yes we're following the law, you better follow the law, we're following the law...I think there were actually some interesting pieces of information. While maybe not "breaking news", important nonetheless. 2. Another is a bit more subtle. It was in response to a question asked by Senator Nelson and the "legal clarity" NASA lawyers have given NASA administration regarding certain issues. I found it quite interesting the response the CFO gave and the "pecking order" that was defined and supposedly why. Personally, I found that to speak volumes. Vitters didn't give the CFO the chance to actually answer that question. But in all likelyhood, the legal clarity memos relating to the SLS takes a lot more time because they depend on the overall funding of the HLV and they are also more complicated from a legal point of view. The fact that NASA is allowed to pursue CCDev 2 under a continuing resolution isn't much of a surprise since it's a continuation of CCDev 1 (which was started under the stimilus bill). Drafting a legal opinion on the legality of starting a new SLS program which likely requires cancelling part of Constellation is a lot more dificult.
Why was NASA soliciting 13 companies for heavy lift studies when congress has already mandated that shuttle technology will be used for the SLS as has been signed by the prez and is now law.
Quote from: OV-106 on 12/01/2010 05:25 pmQuote from: TimL on 12/01/2010 04:50 pmPretty much a waste of time...are you following the law, yes we're following the law, you better follow the law, we're following the law...I think there were actually some interesting pieces of information. While maybe not "breaking news", important nonetheless. 2. Another is a bit more subtle. It was in response to a question asked by Senator Nelson and the "legal clarity" NASA lawyers have given NASA administration regarding certain issues. I found it quite interesting the response the CFO gave and the "pecking order" that was defined and supposedly why. Personally, I found that to speak volumes. It will be interesting to get 51D Mascot's views on how he viewed this hearing. It seems to have been a very productive hearing. Hopefully the next CR will contain the right language in order to implement the NASA Authorization bill.
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/01/2010 07:21 pmIt will be interesting to get 51D Mascot's views on how he viewed this hearing. It seems to have been a very productive hearing. Hopefully the next CR will contain the right language in order to implement the NASA Authorization bill. They may be targeting CR #3. Will take some quick action to get into CR #2. The House appropriations side (Rep. Obey) has drafted a bill that runs through December 18. QuoteResolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-242) is amended by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and inserting `December 18, 2010'.It's possible that the Senate might substitute/pass different language, but Congress as a whole only has until Friday night to pass the same bill.Little has been resolved so far on the other issues (Bush tax cuts, etc.), so we're still waiting on the big picture, too.
I don't know the right answer to the riddle OV, but I don't believe that a single one of those Senator's give a hoot about when something will fly or when the gap will be closed. I honestly believe each and every one of them only cares about how much money NASA is going to be spending in their state PERIOD! Why wasn't there a discussion about NASA asking the appropriation members/congress for $$$ to fund STS-135 or pay for the cost overruns on Webb? This take it out of hide crap needs to stop because it seriously does more harm to the other programs within NASA. Congress is holding the checkbook and asking for things to be accomplished, fine, write the checks already...this CR garbage needs to be abolished or directly tied to congress September paychecks...no approved budget, no gravy.I've been in government for 29 years and 4 of that with NASA, nothing is more frustrating than telling folks not to start working on this or ordering that because it's October or November or December and we're still under a CR...garbage!