Author Topic: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards  (Read 710816 times)

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Wow, this is widely divergent from the Senate bill.  First off, they extend the budget authorizations through 2015, instead of 2013.  Can authorizations really be extend for that length of time and still be expected to make sense that far down the road?

Then they use the CAIB codewords commonly used for justifying the Ares-I, uh, design: "The design of the system should give overriding priority to crew safety, rather than trade safety against other performance criteria, such as low cost and reusability." (p6 lines 9-12).  Forget everything else, as long as someone somewhere can claim that Ares-I is "safer" than any other rocket conceived, that is what we'll get.  Ugh.

And instead of specifying performance metrics and other constraints designed to yield the desired outcome (SDLV/DIRECT), they simply state that the restructured space program must build on the investments made to date on the Orion, Ares-I, and heavy-lift projects. (p6 lines 15-18).  That's way too much wiggle room if you ask me.

That's as far as I've gotten so far, but that corresponds most closely to the Senate's SLS.  Of course, not by name.   This bill has no name for the follow-on to Shuttle/ replacement for CxP.

Mark S.

Online Chris Bergin

This really does read like someone's pressing to keep Ares I.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline mrryndrsn

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
No sign of STS-135 in this? Did I miss it?

And:
"Sec. 202. Restructured Exploration Program

Directs the Administrator to develop a plan to restructure the current exploration program and develop, test, and demonstrate a government-owned crew transportation system and evolvable heavy lift transportation system in a manner that enables a challenging exploration program, minimizes the human space flight “gap”, seeks efficiencies in program management and reductions in fixed and operating costs, requires a high level of crew safety, contains a robust flight and ground test program, facilitates the transition of Shuttle personnel, makes maximum practicable use of the work completed to date on the Orion, Ares I, heavy lift, and ground support and exploration enabling projects and contracts, and is phased in a manner consistent with available and anticipated resources."

How are they going to use Ares I for use with HLV? That seems to replace SD from the Senate side?

They say later in section 202

"(5) The crew transportation system shall have
 predicted levels of safety during ascent to low-Earth
 orbit, transit, and descent from low-Earth orbit that
 are not less than those required of the Ares I/Orion
 configuration that has completed program preliminary design review."

Later on in the section they say

"(6) In order to make the most cost-effective use
of the funds available for the restructured exploration program, the Administrator shall pursue the expeditious and cost-efficient development of a heavy lift launch system that utilizes the systems and flight and ground test activities of the crew transportation system developed under this section to the maximum extent practicable."

They finish off by saying

"(D) the Administrator shall strive to meet
the goal of having the heavy lift launch vehicle authorized in this paragraph available for operational missions by the end of the current decade."

These people have insisted on reinstating Ares 1, stipulated that it has completed preliminary design review, and demanded an HLV by the end of the decade.

Murray Anderson


Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
In some ways the House bill matters, and in others it does not.  The two Bills will have to undergo reconciliation anyhow and then voted on by both chambers again before being sent to the President.  If I were the Senators and the administration I would push the House to pass the current compromise as it seems best, yet the Representatives are a bit more eccentric than the Senators.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
I'm being dramatic, but does that mean there's some shuttle hating Congressmen out there? I'm at a loss as to how STS-135 would be removed.
I don't know that the House bill is based on the Senate bill (paging 51D Mascot again), at least in terms of HSF.  (Outside of HSF, there's probably not much disagreement.)

In terms of HSF, though, it certainly appears that the House bill makes some changes to the President's proposal, particularly with respect to "Constellation," but nothing like the Senate bill, which seems more like a rewrite from scratch.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Sounds like someone is still in denial about the death of CxP and Ares.  I'm not in Rep. Hall's district but I'm going to send him a polite letter anyway.

I hope it helps, because this bill is a disaster waiting to happen, should anything remotely like it get enacted.

Mark S.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
In some ways the House bill matters, and in others it does not.  The two Bills will have to undergo reconciliation anyhow and then voted on by both chambers again before being sent to the President.  If I were the Senators and the administration I would push the House to pass the current compromise as it seems best, yet the Representatives are a bit more eccentric than the Senators.
Given the current NASA administration, I would think they would favor the House version over the Senate version.  With respect to HSF (which is where the disagreement is), the former pretty much leaves all the details to NASA; the latter is more explicit about what NASA must produce with things like launch vehicle lift-capabilities.
« Last Edit: 07/20/2010 01:51 am by psloss »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Sounds like someone wants to spread a banner saying "what is going on at NASA?". Maybe rubbing it in a little bit to get further concessions...

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
This really does read like someone's pressing to keep Ares I.

Not at all suprised.

Reasons for 135s absence: Senate side took care of it. When the two are reconciled it will be in the final, actual plan, IMO.

As to your comment about Ares 1: The answer is yes:


Those behind it may include: Pete Olson, other from Texas (unamed), Shelby (doubtful), Others unammed from Arizona and Utah, Giffords

We all forgot something didn't we: This whole time Giffords has not once changed from her save Ares 1 position even after Shelby changed positions to support SDHLV more instead


Yes some people want to save ares 1. But it will not be saved. Maybe 1 more test flight (would be fully operational otherwise congress wont pay for it).

But after that, no Ares 1 is dead. SDHLV most likely: Iteration 1 J140 SH, iteration 2 J241 SH. If ATK plays ball: J140 4 seg/ J241 4 seg.

8)
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
What happens when you blend this bill and the president's proposal?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Its all very simple. But the appropriators appear more inline with the senate proposal. Therefore the more likely scenerio is:

the final plan will contain more aspects of the senate bill and less of the House bill. The more extreme, "save ares" aspects will not be tolerated.

That seems likely IMHO.

OFC someone recently told me never to underestimate congressional incompetence............

3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
What happens when you blend this bill and the president's proposal?

POTUS fy 2011 is dead ethier way. Period.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Drapper23

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 262
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I don't think Ares 1 development is in the House version of the NASA Authorization Bill. Ares 1 is not a HLV. They may take the 5 Segment solid rockets from Ares 1 & transfer it to the SD-HLV.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Thanks Zerm, and also noting they are really going after commercial crew here (as in badly). Wording such as a government crew system.

Is Congress trying to bring back Constellation, with Ares I/Orion?

Remember, this is the House proposal, as the bill reported last week was the Senate proposal; it becomes the "Congress'" proposal only when they've come to agreement on a final version to send to the President. It probably matters somewhat in determining the eventual outcome that the White House has signaled its support of the Senate bill, which was the product of a very intense effort to reach a compromise across party lines and across divergent space policy interests and approaches. From its inception as a body of text it was a jointly-developed product, built step by step (word by word!) with a view to maintaining consensus. I am not suggesting the House bill was constructed any differently; just describing the approach taken by the Senate.
« Last Edit: 07/20/2010 02:11 am by 51D Mascot »
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
I don't think Ares 1 development is in the House version of the NASA Authorization Bill. Ares 1 is not a HLV. They may take the 5 Segment solid rockets from Ares 1 & transfer it to the SD-HLV.
Nothing beyond one more test flight IMO.

As I said its gone and not coming back. HOWEVER: We don;t need one more test flight, the money is FAR better served building the first Jupiter rocket.

But politics......... :P
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Thanks Zerm, and also noting they are really going after commercial crew here (as in badly). Wording such as a government crew system.

Is Congress trying to bring back Constellation, with Ares I/Orion?

Remember, this is the House proposal, as the bill reported last week was the Senate proposal; it becomes the "Congress'" proposal only when they've come to agreement on a final version to send to the President.

I am expecting a Veto. What about you?
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Thanks Zerm, and also noting they are really going after commercial crew here (as in badly). Wording such as a government crew system.

Is Congress trying to bring back Constellation, with Ares I/Orion?

Remember, this is the House proposal, as the bill reported last week was the Senate proposal; it becomes the "Congress'" proposal only when they've come to agreement on a final version to send to the President.

I guess what others and myself are concerned about is if the Senate compromise has to then compromise with the House to get it through Congress, everything may be so watered-down it effectively still carries the same net result of everything being terminated and at the cost of any immediate gains. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
I dont think thats where we should be worried.

I dont see any reason why Obama wouldn't just veto the thing.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 487
Please.. NO.. NO.. NO.. and NO again to Ares-1.  That will completely kill the budget.. and the bill. UGHH!   Just say NO!

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
It would only be one test flight.

Since they seem intent on continuing 5 seg and j2x that does enough damage on its own (SDHLV has to morph).
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1