Author Topic: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards  (Read 668798 times)

Offline M_Puckett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 63
If you want Commercial Crew and Prop Depots to succeed, a continuing resolution is the worst possible outcome.  They will be gutted first when funds get tight.  They have the weakest political constitutencies.

A CR hurts you most MM.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2010 04:34 pm by M_Puckett »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

In other words, you and I disagree on a CR because we have different goals.

Your "goals" are misguided.  Whatever you think a CR will do for your "goals" are incorrect.

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

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 795
I don't think commercial crew and depots are urgent. I do believe getting NASA out of the launch business is urgent. Not many here agree with that of course. A CR would likely have that effect, whether Congress intends it to or not. And once NASA had got out of the launch business resistance to commercial crew and depots would fade.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 795
Your "goals" are misguided.  Whatever you think a CR will do for your "goals" are incorrect.

Many SDLV supporters will agree Ares I would be a disaster for the Shuttle workforce. They seem to agree it would get NASA out of the launch business. That's one of my goals, and a means to higher level goals.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2010 04:41 pm by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline M_Puckett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 63
NASA won't go out of the launch business, It might gut everything else it does to revive it but it won't go out of the business.  If you force it to eat the baby, it will. 

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Congress is not listening to your 'obvious' dreams. Congress has always been quite happy to fund Ares I.

It doesn't have to. If Congress wants to preserve the long term future of the Shuttle stack, then it has to go for something like DIRECT Lite or sidemount. Ares I will lose much of the workforce, then it will get ever further behind its competitors, then it will lose much of its political support and then it will be cancelled for good. It may be a slow motion trainwreck, but it is a trainwreck nevertheless.

It is now or never for the Shuttle stack. Ares I or a CR that preserves Ares I for a while and cuts off the possibility of a barely affordable SD-HLV makes the end inevitable even if it isn't imminent.

The Shuttle stack was going to go away with Cx anyway. All you daydreamers still don't get it, Congress pays for NASA and it wants SDLVs and has so since 2004-5. If a very popular incoming President with the majority of both sides of Congress allied to his party can't cancel that then you guys bleating on forums have no chance. Some of us were telling you that's would happen ever since FY2011 came out. If Ares I is built then a large Ares V will be built later in that original order. The battle now is purely between Ares I and a SD-HLV of some description. FY2011 fans can only hope that as much of the Senate bill gets through as possible.

Offline grdja

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 13
Most likely outcome of CR passing as it is, or prolonged fighting between Senate, Congress and Administration is a completely gutted NASA with a budget comparable to ESA and no manned spaceflight whatsoever once ISS goes down.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
If the CR contains Cx continuation funding it will have to be continued.

True, but not continued in the way you think.  Look at recent history as an example with little known and even less seldom executed clauses. 

Oh yeah it will be stop and start with no doubt the Administration pulling the same cancellation contingency stunt next fiscal year but this time the contractors will be prepared and budget accordingly until a proper bill is passed.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 795
NASA won't go out of the launch business, It might gut everything else it does to revive it but it won't go out of the business.  If you force it to eat the baby, it will. 

Do you really think it could do that after Ares I failed? Or do you think they could get it operational and use it to support the ISS? Will the rest of Congress accept that when EELV/Orion and/or Falcon 9/Dragon is cheaper?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 795
Most likely outcome of CR passing as it is, or prolonged fighting between Senate, Congress and Administration is a completely gutted NASA with a budget comparable to ESA and no manned spaceflight whatsoever once ISS goes down.

That is a serious possibility. But I do wonder if the rest of Congress would accept getting out of the manned spaceflight business altogether. Maybe they would.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
If the CR contains Cx continuation funding it will have to be continued.

True, but not continued in the way you think.  Look at recent history as an example with little known and even less seldom executed clauses. 
Oh yeah it will be stop and start with no doubt the Administration pulling the same cancellation contingency stunt next fiscal year but this time the contractors will be prepared and budget accordingly until a proper bill is passed.


Yet no real work will be accomplished.  People will still be let go, the workforce will be a shell and the political back-and-forth will continue.

The product is wasted money and time.  Nothing else. 

It also places NASA and the industry as a whole in the worst possible position we collectively can be placed in. 

« Last Edit: 09/13/2010 05:03 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 795
If Ares I is built then a large Ares V will be built later in that original order.

Do you seriously believe Ares I would survive longer than a year, maybe two years?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline M_Puckett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 63
If Ares I is built then a large Ares V will be built later in that original order.

Do you seriously believe Ares I would survive longer than a year, maybe two years?

Without something like Direct to replace it?  I am 100% sure it would.  The jobs would still be ther wouldn't they?  The contracts would still be there wouldn't they?

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
If Ares I is built then a large Ares V will be built later in that original order.

Do you seriously believe Ares I would survive longer than a year, maybe two years?

If it's authorized again now after a direct Presidential attempt to kill it will last this whole century as NASA's preferred 25mT launcher. They will be in no mood to hand out any future work to EELVs if they win this one.

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23390
  • Liked: 1857
  • Likes Given: 972
Your "goals" are misguided.  Whatever you think a CR will do for your "goals" are incorrect.

Many SDLV supporters will agree Ares I would be a disaster for the Shuttle workforce. They seem to agree it would get NASA out of the launch business. That's one of my goals, and a means to higher level goals.

Hate to tell you, but if Ares I is continued that is HSF for the next 30 years.  No Ares V, no commercial launchers, just Ares I/Orion to LEO. Just look that the F-22 and V-22 program, despite a huge movement to cancel the programs in the early stages they still continued due to special interests, and even after all the subsequent delays and overruns they did enter production.  That is what will happen to the HSF program if there is a CR.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2010 04:57 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 795
Without something like Direct to replace it?  I am 100% sure it would.  The jobs would still be ther wouldn't they?  The contracts would still be there wouldn't they?

Much of the workforce would be gone. The option of a somewhat affordable SD-HLV would have been cut off. The SSME would be gone. The 5 seg boosters and the J2X would still not be finished and the J2X would still have performance problems. In the mean time ISS continues to eat resources and continues to feed SpaceX and Orbital. Falcon and Dragon are building up a reliability record. Everybody knows EELV could carry Orion as well. And Obama would still be opposed to Constellation Lite and might allow Garver to sabotage it as much as possible. Severe budget cuts across the board are likely and NASA is unlikely to escape that. Not a very promising future for Ares.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7200
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 801
  • Likes Given: 894
I don't think commercial crew and depots are urgent. I do believe getting NASA out of the launch business is urgent. Not many here agree with that of course. A CR would likely have that effect, whether Congress intends it to or not. And once NASA had got out of the launch business resistance to commercial crew and depots would fade.

You fail to understand the likely outcome.  NASA will not be out of the launch business. To ensure that NASA will not be out of the launch business, commercial crew and possibly tech development will be strangled at birth to ensure that some breed of SLS comes into existence.

Do you understand now? No matter what the details, it is unlikely that any scenario starting with a CR leads to commercial crew launch.  Indeed, it may force the prevention of commercial crew launch because the money is needed to develop the NASA launch system.  Understand, Martjin, that they won't give up.  Giving up means that they were wrong and that is the one thing that they will never, ever accept.

The most that we can hope for right now is an Orion/SLS being adopted swiftly in a bill that allows for the development of commercial crew and the infrastructure related to commercial BEO in parallel to the SLS program.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Everybody knows EELV could carry Orion as well. And Obama would still be opposed to Constellation Lite and might allow Garver to sabotage it as much as possible. Severe budget cuts across the board are likely and NASA is unlikely to escape that. Not a very promising future for Ares.

which will do no good if it's never authorized to. If the House wins expect Cx to be reinstated in full. Lunar landings may not take place until the 2030s now but it will eventually happen if the Griffin camp wins. Obama and Garver will be long gone before Ares I IOC and the Republicans that count, the ones in direct control of NASA, want government controlled rockets and HSF to continue. 
« Last Edit: 09/13/2010 05:10 pm by marsavian »

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 795
You fail to understand the likely outcome.  NASA will not be out of the launch business. To ensure that NASA will not be out of the launch business, commercial crew and possibly tech development will be strangled at birth to ensure that some breed of SLS comes into existence.

Those are not essential and they can't kill Dragon. Also remember that NASA will be getting out of the launch business very, very soon, for at least a couple of years, while ULA, SpaceX and Orbital won't.

Quote
Understand, Martjin, that they won't give up.  Giving up means that they were wrong and that is the one thing that they will never, ever accept.

Who are "they"? How much influence will they have in a new Congress? How much influence will they have once much of the Shuttle workforce and supply chain is dismantled?

Quote
The most that we can hope for right now is an Orion/SLS being adopted swiftly in a bill that allows for the development of commercial crew and the infrastructure related to commercial BEO in parallel to the SLS program.

Falcon/Dragon or EELV/Orion is all we need and we will probably end up with both. Dreamchaser and CST-100 are not crucial. Depots aren't crucial. And you can always try to reintroduce them later. Only SDLV doesn't have that luxury.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 675
  • Likes Given: 195
Everybody knows EELV could carry Orion as well. And Obama would still be opposed to Constellation Lite and might allow Garver to sabotage it as much as possible. Severe budget cuts across the board are likely and NASA is unlikely to escape that. Not a very promising future for Ares.

which will do no good if it's never authorized to. If the House wins expect Cx to be reinstated in full. Lunar landings may not take place until the 2030s now but it will eventually happen if the Griffin camp wins. Obama and Garver will be long gone before Ares I IOC and the Republicans that count, the ones in direct control of NASA, want government controlled rockets and HSF to continue. 

Hogwash. If CxP is reinstated, it won't go anywhere. The budget situation hasn't changed. CxP was in reality not going anywhere (beyond possibly LEO), and a reborn CxP won't either.

CxP is an evolutionary dead end for NASA HSF. (and perhaps even NASA in general)
« Last Edit: 09/13/2010 05:16 pm by Lars_J »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0