Author Topic: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview  (Read 534432 times)

Offline TimL

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Sailor Tim
  • Tidal mudflats of Virginia
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #160 on: 12/01/2010 06:06 pm »
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.
"Well if we get lost, we'll just pull in someplace and ask for directions"

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2107
  • Liked: 299
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #161 on: 12/01/2010 06:08 pm »
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.

Shuttle technology is to be used to the extent possible. It does not prevent NASA from studing other forms of heavy lift......

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #162 on: 12/01/2010 06:12 pm »
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.

This is my "number 2" above.  It's not just about an HLV though.  The response given by the CFO hints at anything but a SDLV based on the response with respect to an HLV and dragging their feet with respect to MPCV, perhaps intentionally hurting Orion in the process. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #163 on: 12/01/2010 06:16 pm »
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.

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 answer is it all goes back to number 2.....
« Last Edit: 12/01/2010 06:17 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2107
  • Liked: 299
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #164 on: 12/01/2010 06:19 pm »
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
Shuttle technology is to be used to the extent possible. It does not prevent NASA from studing other forms of heavy lift......

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2010 06:22 pm by pathfinder_01 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #165 on: 12/01/2010 06:46 pm »
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.

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. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #166 on: 12/01/2010 06:47 pm »
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...

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #167 on: 12/01/2010 06:48 pm »
Looks like the House is voting on a CR to Dec. 18 right now.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2107
  • Liked: 299
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #168 on: 12/01/2010 06:49 pm »
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.

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. 

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.

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #169 on: 12/01/2010 06:50 pm »
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...

and when does the 90 day study start? Is it dependent on the appropriations?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #170 on: 12/01/2010 07:17 pm »
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.

Your statements appear to me to indicate otherwise with regards to "hoping for failure". 

Again, with this latest post, it is a lot of conjecture attempting to be passed as fact. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18266
  • Liked: 7876
  • Likes Given: 3302
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #171 on: 12/01/2010 07:21 pm »
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...

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. 

Vitter didn't give the NASA 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.   

However, I liked the fact that Vitters admitted that part of the problem was Congress' fault since they should have clarified some of this in the first continuing resolution (CR) that they passed. But this wasn't done because they wanted a "clean" CR.

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.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2010 08:35 pm by yg1968 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18266
  • Liked: 7876
  • Likes Given: 3302
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #172 on: 12/01/2010 07:22 pm »
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...

and when does the 90 day study start? Is it dependent on the appropriations?

The 90 day period starts from the day that the NASA Authorization bill was signed by the President (October 11, 2010).
« Last Edit: 12/01/2010 07:24 pm by yg1968 »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17996
  • Liked: 4071
  • Likes Given: 2125
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #173 on: 12/01/2010 07:43 pm »
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.
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. 

Quote
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'.

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.

Offline TimL

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Sailor Tim
  • Tidal mudflats of Virginia
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #174 on: 12/01/2010 07:46 pm »
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!
« Last Edit: 12/01/2010 07:51 pm by TimL »
"Well if we get lost, we'll just pull in someplace and ask for directions"

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #175 on: 12/01/2010 07:50 pm »
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...

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.   


On your first paragraph, as I mentioned, it was Senator Nelson.  However, that is not really the subtle point in which I was referring. 

On your second paragraph, CCDev 2 is not really a simple "continuation" of the first.  It is an open competition, not just additional funding to those who got it during the first round. 

I'm not saying by any means CCDev 2 RFPs for Space Act Agreements should not have been let, just curious that seems so "simple" to rationalize.  However it takes a lot of time to "explore the trade space" with respect to MPCV (based on Orion where a contract is already in place and significant money already spent) and an HLV (where the options - and really the intent of congress - is pretty clear). 

In addition, there was something about grad students thrown in there.  While I absolutely agree research is important at universities and the students there are part of the future workforce pipeline, IMHO there are thousands of people now who are the current workforce pipeline who are wondering how long their current job lasts and how best to try to apply their talents and experience for what comes next. 

So, as I said, I found that conversational exchange to speak volumes to me personally. 

Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38171
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22651
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #176 on: 12/01/2010 07:53 pm »
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.

Because SLS is only a name of vehicle that has no shape, form or function.  To define such a vehicle, studies must be performed.  No where in the law does it say SLS uses 2 SRB's with SSME's on a modified ET.

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #177 on: 12/01/2010 07:56 pm »
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...

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.

For what's its worth I certainly hope this kind of oversight(on behalf of the taxpayers I might add) continues and is as aggressive if not more. It is clear that CxP ran off the rails by trying to horse trade on their own, coupled with a lack of congressional oversight  that lead to such a mess.

The one question that I seem to keep asking is what mechanism is there if any to force NASA leadership to actually implement the intent of the law. I heard an awful lot of "we fully intend to" and not a lot of "we will"?

"I fully intended to take out the garbage tonight honey" is a very honest statement but carries exactly zero responsibility for whether it happens or not. I expect far more from these people. Certainly with hearings like these I feel like my representatives are holding up their end of the bargain. The jury is currently still very skeptical and not very confident that Holdren and Co. will do the same.

On behalf of this taxpayer 51D please keep it up. I am confident if you all continue this kind of oversight we will end up with a manned space program which at least will hold and perhaps extend a bit the current ground for the next generation.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18266
  • Liked: 7876
  • Likes Given: 3302
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #178 on: 12/01/2010 08:08 pm »
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.
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. 

Quote
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'.

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.


You make some good points. A short term CR until December 18 will likely be a clean continuing resolution as there is less incentives to fix everything for only a two-week period.  However, I wonder if two weeks will make much of a difference. Chances are we will have to wait for the new Congress before this is fixed.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2010 08:18 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #179 on: 12/01/2010 08:09 pm »
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!

Sure they care about the money being spent in their state and the jobs there.  It would be naive to think otherwise, afterall, that is the nature of our system. 

However, I guess I just prefer not to see them as "bad" because of that or assume they "only" care about that.  I like to think they also care about the budget (if it is over, etc) the general timeline but a lot of the technical details must obviously be left to NASA.  Yet NASA (and something you are keenly aware of based on your above post) as a government agency must function within the desires dictated by law.  Clearly an imperfect system but better than other options around the world.

I did here some info not known to me personally with respect to STS-135.  It is "number 1" in a previous post and there was a fair amount of discussion, I thought anyway, on the subject.  I also heard something about JWST, but was busy with something else at the time, so don't know the details.

As for the whole CR process, I agree with you on that.  I really wish that congress could appropriate a budget (since that is one of their primary functions) on time and consistently because it does make things otherwise a mess.  But I do think strong oversight, the "take it out of their hide" stuff, is essential by the appropriate committees that oversee NASA, to make sure they don't drift too far away (because that is a way of monitoring overall budget and schedule) from the intent and that, in my opinion, was a problem with CxP. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0