Author Topic: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards  (Read 710824 times)

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Glad to see some good news come out of Congress for once. :) Now the fun part starts...the ball is now in NASA's court to do the right thing.

Really at a major crossroads....Sidemount pretty much boxes us in (in terms of evolution). Inline allows for much more growth. Which one does NASA choose? Or do they take the middle road and choose the hybrid?
« Last Edit: 07/16/2010 01:09 am by gladiator1332 »

Offline Diagoras

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 99
Note to everyone: this is the Senate Authorization language, the House must agree, or there's no Authorization. Also, even if this is enacted into law, the people who write the checks, the Appropriations folks, must also agree - and its sure that they won't. Authorization's job is to make people happy, Appropriations' job is to get things actually running.


Thanks for the update on the legislation progress, it sometimes gets hard to keep track of where this is in Congress.

Appropriations might agree, if Obama says he's good with it. I can't really see them passing something he's not alright with.
"It’s the typical binary world of 'NASA is great' or 'cancel the space program,' with no nuance or understanding of the underlying issues and pathologies of the space industrial complex."

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Note to everyone: this is the Senate Authorization language, the House must agree, or there's no Authorization. Also, even if this is enacted into law, the people who write the checks, the Appropriations folks, must also agree - and its sure that they won't. Authorization's job is to make people happy, Appropriations' job is to get things actually running.


Whatever is agreed will include a SD-HLV. Listening to that Press Conference and hearing Senator after Senator gush about SRBs showed where their preferences lie. Congress has form here as it canceled the last all EELV plan in 2005. It was very optimistic to assume they would just meekly accept FY2011 as is especially when there has been open hostility to it ever since introduction.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Hahaha, someone should tell 51D about this. Someone might be left wondering "which center is KFC?"

Hehe...good thing initials aren't used in the actual legislative text, where "Kennedy Space Center" is spelled out, as opposed to this excerpt from the Section-by-Section description. This is what happens when someone is asked to quickly pull together a summary of the bill to send around (Wednesday morning) when the bill was distributed to Member offices, and those working on the bill don't read through the draft carefully enough--or too soon after eating fried chicken, as suggested--to catch it.

It has been passed on to the "appropriate authorities" to at least correct the version on the Committee website.

"Thank ya muchly, phantomdj!!"
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Glad to see some good news come out of Congress for once. :) Now the fun part starts...the ball is now in NASA's court to do the right thing.
The ball is not in NASA's court yet.  It still will be a bit before this bill makes it through Congress; today was another step in that process, but there are several remaining.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
A commenter on another site looked at the FY2010 projections for FY2011-2013 and noticed that Orion expenditures were about $1.9B-$2.0B/year, while in the draft bill from earlier this week (which seems to be largely the same as today's funding-wise) it's $1.3B-1.4B/year. Any thoughts on the difference?

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/345955main_8_Exploration_%20FY_2010_UPDATED_final.pdf
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/NASA%20Rockefeller1.pdf
« Last Edit: 07/16/2010 01:19 am by neilh »
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Glad to see some good news come out of Congress for once. :) Now the fun part starts...the ball is now in NASA's court to do the right thing.
The ball is not in NASA's court yet.  It still will be a bit before this bill makes it through Congress; today was another step in that process, but there are several remaining.


Perhaps, but with Senate and Presidential support it would not be too much of a leap to see forward work being done to support the draft bill as is was being done for the proposed FY2011,  work for STS-135/136 has already been worked for a while per L2 sources.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Glad to see some good news come out of Congress for once. :) Now the fun part starts...the ball is now in NASA's court to do the right thing.
The ball is not in NASA's court yet.  It still will be a bit before this bill makes it through Congress; today was another step in that process, but there are several remaining.


Perhaps, but with Senate and Presidential support it would not be too much of a leap to see forward work being done to support the draft bill as is was being done for the proposed FY2011,  work for STS-135/136 has already been worked for a while per L2 sources.
Those would be more akin to high-level assessments than work in earnest.  Even if it would be within its authority to do so in absence of the kind of language in this bill, NASA had not yet committed to fly 135 (and hasn't yet).

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Nelson's statement:

http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&

I don't think anybody posted it yet, but here's Chairman Rockefeller's opening statement and summary of "key elements" of the bill:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4ae69fe8-581d-4d10-85b0-5b15643680b9

According to Nelson's statement, $1.6B will be going to commercial crew development. So it's a bit more than in the July 13th proposed bill.

It just occurred to me that Nelson is possibly including the extra COTS money in his $1.6B total. So commercial crew might be less than $1.6B.

I just read it through again, and you are indeed correct: "And, it bolsters commercial space ventures by allocating about $1.6 billion for development in the next three years"

Supposedly Warner's and Boxer's amendments for increased commercial crew and space technology funding were incorporated, though. If so, where's the money?

I suspect that some of the amendements passed but were for much lesser amounts. They said the amendements passed but "as modified". The modifications must have been to the amounts proposed.
« Last Edit: 07/16/2010 01:47 am by yg1968 »

Offline spectre000

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
I'm happy to see congress directing Nasa to build a new heavy lift launcher.  But this all just seems like 2004 all over again.  What's going to happen when a new administration takes office?  2016 is a long ways away.  Our problem is we keep switching gears every 5-10 years. 

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
I suspect that some of the amendement passed but were for much lesser amounts. They said the amendements as modified. The modifications most of been to the amounts proposed.
Definitely another question for 51D Mascot, but listening to Senator Hutchison's motion again in the archived webcast, I do not hear an amendment from Senator Warner in the list she read.  (As SpaceDave noted a few posts back.)
« Last Edit: 07/16/2010 01:49 am by psloss »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
I suspect that some of the amendments passed but were for much lesser amounts. They said that the amendments were passed but as modified. The modifications must have been to the amounts proposed.
Definitely another question for 51D Mascot, but listening to Senator Hutchison's motion again in the archived webcast, I do not hear an amendment from Senator Warner in the list she read.  (As SpaceDave noted a few posts back.)


I think that you are right about Warner's amendement. As far as the other amendments, 51D Mascot kind of answered this question in this post by saying the amendments were relatively minor and that the revised bill will not be very different from the July 13th bill:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22163.msg618865#msg618865
« Last Edit: 07/16/2010 02:30 am by yg1968 »

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Hahaha, someone should tell 51D about this. Someone might be left wondering "which center is KFC?"

Hehe...good thing initials aren't used in the actual legislative text, where "Kennedy Space Center" is spelled out, as opposed to this excerpt from the Section-by-Section description. This is what happens when someone is asked to quickly pull together a summary of the bill to send around (Wednesday morning) when the bill was distributed to Member offices, and those working on the bill don't read through the draft carefully enough--or too soon after eating fried chicken, as suggested--to catch it.

It has been passed on to the "appropriate authorities" to at least correct the version on the Committee website.

"Thank ya muchly, phantomdj!!"


Thank you 51D Mascot. Excellent work!

Cheers and More Cheers!
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
I'm happy to see congress directing Nasa to build a new heavy lift launcher.  But this all just seems like 2004 all over again.  What's going to happen when a new administration takes office?  2016 is a long ways away.  Our problem is we keep switching gears every 5-10 years.

That's the point of this type of transition.  IF Obama gets a second term, it's possible the follow on HLV, and 1, 2 or even 3 commercial launchers could be going to LEO by the end of his second term.  IF gears are changed at that point it would be payload changes not launcher changes.

So the "worst" that could happen is in 2016 President Sara Palin decides she is going to go to a new destination, say Moon 1st instead of NEO.  In the end that's the good thing about a non shuttle architecture, you can change destination much quicker.

Now if Obama get's 1 term, who knows, we could be back here again on 1-20-13, but this time with only commercial launchers and internationals going to ISS.  Then it gets REALLY hairy.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline ratman

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • New York
    • Orbital models
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
I think the motto of the day should be the famous quote from Sir Winston:
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.” :)

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
I think the motto of the day should be the famous quote from Sir Winston:
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.” :)

Heh, yeah, I just had that very same thought!  Glad to see Congress do the right thing here!

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
I'm happy to see congress directing Nasa to build a new heavy lift launcher.  But this all just seems like 2004 all over again.  What's going to happen when a new administration takes office?  2016 is a long ways away.  Our problem is we keep switching gears every 5-10 years. 

Well, if what was set in motion today turns into another Ares 1, then we'll need to switch gears.

Both jongoff and NOofC mentioned something, and it does deserve some discussion: a system was rewarded today (some refer to it as the Arsenal system) that hasn't successfully completed a HSF system since the Shuttle. Rewarding failure strikes many as a recipe for continued failure, especially when the alternative was to join hands with the Air Force and commercial space to build a new, exciting kerolox architecture with an eye to reducing operating costs. Now NASA is going off alone again with a HLV that most likely will have no other customer.

We already know we didn't pick the launcher with the lowest operating costs. A failure to produce a working launch system, or the production of a launcher with a failure rate approaching that of the Shuttle will call the entire NASA HSF program into question. Given how the medicine of the original FY2011 was taken, I feel the only path forward from there would be to follow the recommendations of the Aldridge commission and break up NASA. It would be the only way to get control of the political process in the face of repeated failures.

Success moving forward is vital; we can't afford another VentureStar or Ares 1. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, and hope we can find the money for fuel depots and that kerolox engine just in case the Arsenal system fails once again.
« Last Edit: 07/16/2010 02:51 am by jimgagnon »

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7110626.html

"We think this is a great start," said Lori Garver, NASA's deputy administrator. "It accomplishes the major shifts the president set out to have for the space program."

An unnamed White House official not authorized to comment said "the bill appears to contain the critical elements necessary for achieving the president's mission for NASA."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/15/AR2010071505913.html

"This is a milestone in the realignment of the space program for the 21st century," said Lori Garver, NASA's deputy administrator. "It preserves the most important parts of the president's plan."


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-senate-committee-vote-20100715,0,2590515.story

With the Obama plan going nowhere fast, Nelson said he was forced to compromise. Indeed, during the past several weeks, several proponents of the president's plan met with Nelson to express their concerns about the bill -- only to be told that NASA's future had to be determined by "political science," not "rocket science."

But Deputy NASA chief Lori Garver defended the end result, saying the Obama administration got what it wanted in canceling Constellation and getting some money -- $1.6billion during three years -- for commercial rockets that would carry cargo and crew. "The key aspects of what the president set out for NASA are in this bill," she said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/science/space/16nasa.html?_r=1

“This is way beyond what we had hoped for, the ability to come into agreement with Congress this soon,” Ms. Garver said.
« Last Edit: 07/16/2010 03:48 am by marsavian »

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/109109-adoption-of-nasa-compromise-means-continued-leadership-in-space-exploration-rep-frank-wolf

Last month, I joined Reps. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), John Culberson (R-Texas), Gene Green (D-Texas) and 58 other bipartisan members representing 18 states on a letter to President Obama detailing a compromise plan centering on the immediate development of a “heavy lift rocket” and crew capsule capable of exploring beyond low Earth orbit, something the U.S. has not done since the Apollo era.

Our compromise proposal — which was embraced by the Senate Commerce Committee in its NASA authorization bill — ensures that NASA will have an exploration rocket available within six years. Our plan also capitalizes on the nearly $10 billion already invested in the development of the next-generation rocket, guaranteeing that taxpayers' previous investments were not made in vain. Importantly, it protects our defense industrial base and keeps our skilled space workforce employed, making sure we don’t lose their critical skill sets.
« Last Edit: 07/16/2010 03:15 am by marsavian »

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436

Both jongoff and NOofC mentioned something, and it does deserve some discussion: a system was rewarded today (some refer to it as the Arsenal system) that hasn't successfully completed a HSF system since the Shuttle. Rewarding failure strikes many as a recipe for continued failure, especially when the alternative was to join hands with the Air Force and commercial space to build a new, exciting kerolox architecture with an eye to reducing operating costs. Now NASA is going off alone again with a HLV that most likely will have no other customer.

If that potential synergy was the reason for delaying HLV development, it sure wasn't well stated in the FY2011 rollout!

Quote
A failure to produce a working launch system, or the production of a launcher with a failure rate approaching that of the Shuttle will call the entire NASA HSF program into question.

Assuming we count both catastrophic failures against the launch vehicle, does that not still give STS one of the highest overall reliability rates of any launcher, with 2 failures in 132 flights? 

 
Quote
Success moving forward is vital; we can't afford another VentureStar or Ares 1. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, and hope we can find the money for fuel depots and that kerolox engine just in case the Arsenal system fails once again.

It's do or die time for sure - SDHLV has a golden opportunity here, but it's gotta work!

Tags:
 

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