Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

[DigitalMan]

Already mentioned by marsavian.

I'm really curious whether the increase in technology development by Boxer's amendment was just symbolic.

Edit to phrase it better.

Looking at the numbers, yes, it was symbolic.  The long list of developments and launches are gone.

[Namechange User]

"To date" being the key words. STS had a flawless record up to it's 25th flight.

No, 51-F is a 'failure"  It did not achieve the proper orbit

They were still able to carry out nominal mission objectives.

Mission completion is the proper measure, otherwise anytime we have an IFA we would have to classify the "flight" as a "failure"

[tminus9]

If President Obama is wise he'll soon hire some smarter political spinners that have much better connections to Congress and the public.

Most Americans want their President to be quite successful. It takes some really strange political advice to the President to create this kind of mess and need Congress to step in and fix it.

On the contrary, the President's team did a great job of putting out a proposal and negotiating with Congress to make as many people as possible happy.

Wow!

OK. If you want to believe in the Tooth Fairy, it is your right to do so.

Calling a crash and burn proposal "negotiating with Congress" is a bit of a stretch.

This is ridiculous. While nobody outside of the process knows the true motives (and that hasn't stopped many here from speculating), this is how negotiation works. One side decides (privately) what they're willing to accept, then proposes more. Everyone can do their public grandstanding, and then each side gives in to reach a compromise.

The President's job is to work with Congress to get things done. That's what he did here. No solution is perfect for anyone, but that comes with governing.

[yg1968]

Already mentioned by marsavian.

I'm really curious whether the increase in technology development by Boxer's amendment was just symbolic.

Edit to phrase it better.

Looking at the numbers, yes, it was symbolic.  The long list of developments and launches are gone.

What numbers? We are still waiting for the new numbers.

[robertross]

If President Obama is wise he'll soon hire some smarter political spinners that have much better connections to Congress and the public.

Most Americans want their President to be quite successful. It takes some really strange political advice to the President to create this kind of mess and need Congress to step in and fix it.

On the contrary, the President's team did a great job of putting out a proposal and negotiating with Congress to make as many people as possible happy.

I really wouldn't describe the introduction of FY2011 as a "great job". It was a big shock and literally came out of nowhere for most people. When asked for details there were a lot of "I don't knows, and We'll get back to you's".

If Obama's plan all along was to shock congress into making a compromise, then he did a good job. But I honestly think he was hoping for FY2011 to pass un-altered. But once he heard the opposition, he felt it was not worth fighting over.

This is more in line with my thoughts.

Obama clearly knew of the issues & infighting at NASA, and was probably hoping to stir things up. Did he fully expect to get his way in the end with FY2011? I doubt it, but he clearly indicated things were broken and needed to change. Just look at the mess CxP was in: Ares I was a disaster, with Ares V following suit because of it. We have documents from JSC & MSFC with opposing views, and in some respects (being kind) tipping the scales due to favouritism.

As to this not being able to be accomplished during the financial crisis...that's just baloney. Yes, there were tremendous pressures to get the economy back on track, but this was a part of it as well. Look at the job losses to date. Do they not count? As President, there is a multi-role function, and if you can't handle the pressure, you don't belong in the chair. I think the President half-flubbed this. I think he fully expected a compromise, but the handling was poor (especially for something high on the list of requiring action from his administration), and we have an agency that appears to be ina shambles (from my POV).

I do give Nelson a good bit of credit, but he was not alone. The Hutchison Bill was very well crafted and had a lot going for it. What we have now is a reasonable compromise, though I too agree far from perfect. It's a good compromise. We still need commercial to carry the baton in many roles, and this Bill, imo, does fall short of that. I 'hope' that the funding discrepancy does translate into additional funds above the initial amount.

The proof as to how well this works will come in the months and years ahead: one is as to how the ISS fairs, for it is the one that could suffer the greatest due to inaction; and the second is the aerospace industry, which is already being battered by job losses and a sour economy. As to R&D and its jobs: those don't exist yet, so it isn't as critical, but starting on a sustained funding plan in the years ahead, developing required capabilities, not just working on senseless projects, should bolster the industry as the needs arise.

I'm cautiously optimistic. I just hope some ISS parts & science get funded and quick.

[edkyle99]

I believe the Atlas V failure you speak of was actually a third stage Centaur failure that the satellite itself corrected over time. The Atlas V itself has performed flawlessly.

Centaur is the second stage - and an integral part - of the Atlas 5 launch vehicle.  On the AV-009 mission, liquid hydrogen leaked through a valve that failed to close properly during the Centaur coast phase, leading to a propellant shortage that caused the RL10 engine to shut down several seconds early during its second burn.  This was a launch vehicle failure.  The NROL-30R satellites (more than one) reportedly made up the delta-v shortfall, but the effort likely reduces operational life by some amount.

You mentioned Saturn 5 as an example of flawlessness, but SA-502 (Apollo 6) suffered a substantial launch vehicle failure.  It lost two second stage engines during ascent - a problem that almost caused a catastrophic loss of the vehicle.  Later, the third stage engine failed to restart as planned, leaving itself stranded in LEO.  Apollo 6 performed its own burns to execute a backup mission, but the spacecraft was unable to reach the originally planned orbit and velocities.

Saturn I/IB never failed outright, but the first Saturn IB launched from LC-39B came within a fraction of a second of shutting down at T-0, due to a previously unknown timing issue that manifested itself on the new platform.  The rocket very nearly faltered, which would have caused it to blow up on its launch platform on live TV.  Crew survival odds were  iffy for that scenario.

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

    Why must "leadership" == "decide and build a heavy lifter right now"?
    Obama's plan seemed clear: kill the STS pork-industrial-complex. Something that neither Nixon, nor Ford, nor Carter (they can be partly excused on the grounds that it wasn't flying yet and thus its flaws obvious), nor Reagan, nor Bush I, nor Clinton, nor Bush were willing to do. That took guts -- it was guaranteed to be politically unpopular. You don't have to like where it was leading -- you can make the case that SDHLV is a necessary prerequisite to exploration -- but that was leadership.

"SDHLV" isn't necessary, but "HLV" is.  The only "HLV" alternatives to "SD" were on paper.  I personally liked the kerosene rocket idea - it would cost less to operate - but it would also cost a lot more to develop than "SD" and would take longer to develop. 

"SD" is not just politically expedient.  It makes common sense - if it is done right.

    Excellent -- Senator Nelson is a rocket designer. Shall we drive on bridges designed by Senators? Fly on airplanes designed by Senators? I appreciate that he may be genuinely trying to further the goal of exploration, but that doesn't mean he understands arithmetic.

The Senator is not making design choices, he is laying groundwork.  But Sen. Nelson does have a better big picture feel for the problem than any other politician.  He orbited the planet on board Columbia, just a few weeks before 51L.  I suspect that actually being strapped in to ride that wild horse to orbit provides some valuable perspective.

    Indeed, by 2016, we might be able to loft a $1 billion dollar Orion to ISS once a year, carrying 4 (or 6?) people compared Soyuz's 3. That'll show those Russians.
    And by the end of the decade, we'll have an upper stage that can send that $1 billion dollar Orion around the moon (or anywhere else a week's travel away). Apollo 8 Mark II -- that'll show those Chinese!

NASA currently launches multiple $1 billion-plus Shuttle missions to ISS every year.  This game isn't free.
 
 - Ed Kyle

[yg1968]

Already mentioned by marsavian.

I'm really curious whether the increase in technology development by Boxer's amendment was just symbolic.

Edit to phrase it better.

Looking at the numbers, yes, it was symbolic.  The long list of developments and launches are gone.

What numbers? We are still waiting for the new numbers.

OK, some of the numbers appear on page 2 of this article:

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100716/NEWS02/7160322/1086/Senators+realign+NASA+s+direction

[Jeff Bingham]

If President Obama is wise he'll soon hire some smarter political spinners that have much better connections to Congress and the public.

Most Americans want their President to be quite successful. It takes some really strange political advice to the President to create this kind of mess and need Congress to step in and fix it.

On the contrary, the President's team did a great job of putting out a proposal and negotiating with Congress to make as many people as possible happy.

If you could be specific about the "negotiating" you're referring to, I'd REALLY be interested in hearing about that.

[yg1968]

If President Obama is wise he'll soon hire some smarter political spinners that have much better connections to Congress and the public.

Most Americans want their President to be quite successful. It takes some really strange political advice to the President to create this kind of mess and need Congress to step in and fix it.

On the contrary, the President's team did a great job of putting out a proposal and negotiating with Congress to make as many people as possible happy.

If you could be specific about the "negotiating" you're referring to, I'd REALLY be interested in hearing about that.

You would know a lot more about this. But it's obvious that Nelson and others were trying to put as much of the FY2011 NASA Budget as possible in this compromise bill. So that it would be acceptable to the President.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

As to R&D and its jobs: those don't exist yet, so it isn't as critical,

It's not about the jobs, it's about the potential return on the investment. You know, the thing space advocates beat themselves in the chest over? Saying how vital the space program is to driving technology etc.

but starting on a sustained funding plan in the years ahead, developing required capabilities,

We'll see if that will happen, or if whatever's allocated to R&D won't end up being used as a slush fund should something go awry.

not just working on senseless projects, should bolster the industry as the needs arise.

The primary mission of a R&D program should be developing a specific technology. There is no guaranteed benefit to the industry. What exactly in the proposed FTDs is "senseless"? That they don't require a BFR to demonstrate a concept? Also I don't see who decides when "the need arises". If it's the people that are happy with the status quo, don't expect progress.

I don't know why I even bother. It's not like R&D has mattered to NASA or many in the "space community" since the 80s. Now the big deal is the launchers, not so much what flies on them (unless it's a tin can with a human in it).

[simonbp]

I don't know why I even bother. It's not like R&D has mattered to NASA or many in the "space community" since the 80s. Now the big deal is the launchers, not so much what flies on them (unless it's a tin can with a human in it).

You're looking in the wrong direction. The other half of the space community (unmanned) regularly does lots of R&D, the best of which trickles down to the manned program. Since nobody get killed if the tech doesn't work, and since nearly every unmanned NASA spacecraft is a one-off, this just works better. And that's why there is a relatively enormous SEP rocket on its way to Vesta and later Ceres, a spacecraft around the Moon demonstrating a multiple TB/day comm link on DSN, and rover to be launched next year that will be the largest demonstration of Mars EDL to date.

So yes, NASA has plenty of R&D. It just doesn't need a redundant program on the manned side...

[psloss]

Eric Berger with the Houston Chronicle posted about a short interview he did with Lori Garver last night:
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2010/07/post_163.html

Interestingly, I think her comments could still be interpreted in different ways.

[Downix]

I think it's quite fair to assign blame for both shuttle mishaps (SRM leak, LH2 tank foam shedding) on the launch vehicle. I would consider a failure rate of 1.5% for any SDHLV to be grounds to say that its choice was a mistake. Atlas V and Delta IV both already have flawless records to date; if the SDHLV record is not equally flawless, then I also think it's fair to say the political process failed all Americans today.

"To date" being the key words. STS had a flawless record up to it's 25th flight. Atlas V is on it's 21st. I'm not saying that Atlas V isn't a great rocket. However, it doesn't have nearly the same amount of flight history, unless you start looking at the whole Atlas family, and then you have some catostrophic failures you have to count.

Incorrect.  The flaw from the 25th flight was already demonstrated by the 2nd.   It just happened to have an o ring failure away from the ET on STS-2.

[yg1968]

Eric Berger with the Houston Chronicle posted about a short interview he did with Lori Garver last night:
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2010/07/post_163.html

Interestingly, I think her comments could still be interpreted in different ways.

Interesting interview. She seems very supportive. It would be interesting to get Bolden's comments as well.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

You're looking the wrong direction. The other half of the space community (unmanned) regularly does lots of R&D, the best of which trickles down to the manned program. Since nobody get killed if the tech doesn't work, and since nearly every unmanned NASA spacecraft is a one-off, this just works better. And that's why there is a relatively enormous SEP rocket on its way to Vesta and later Ceres, a spacecraft around the Moon demonstrating a multiple TB/day comm link on DSN, and rover to be launched next year that will be the largest demonstration of Mars EDL to date.

So yes, NASA has plenty of R&D. It just doesn't need a redundant program on the manned side...

"Plenty of R&D" for stuff involving unmanned missions. Flying humans is a bit trickier and research to make it easier would be nice, perhaps even critical if "we're going to become a space fairing species" like the standard mantra that echoes among spaceflight supporters says. I'm not solely a unmanned supporter and some tech development intended specifically to benefit HSF in the long run would be nice, if it manages to survive long enough. That's what bothers me.
Don't take my post as meaning "it's the end of R&D". I'm merely pointing out that the launchers seem to garner a lot of attention and I'm not talking only about the government ones, same goes for "commercial".

[MP99]

    Excellent -- Senator Nelson is a rocket designer. Shall we drive on bridges designed by Senators? Fly on airplanes designed by Senators? I appreciate that he may be genuinely trying to further the goal of exploration, but that doesn't mean he understands arithmetic.

The Senator is not making design choices, he is laying groundwork.  But Sen. Nelson does have a better big picture feel for the problem than any other politician.  He orbited the planet on board Columbia, just a few weeks before 51L.  I suspect that actually being strapped in to ride that wild horse to orbit provides some valuable perspective.

NASA has produced enough reports that I think you could fairly say he's choosing between options presented to him.

cheers, Martin

[psloss]

I think it's quite fair to assign blame for both shuttle mishaps (SRM leak, LH2 tank foam shedding) on the launch vehicle. I would consider a failure rate of 1.5% for any SDHLV to be grounds to say that its choice was a mistake. Atlas V and Delta IV both already have flawless records to date; if the SDHLV record is not equally flawless, then I also think it's fair to say the political process failed all Americans today.

"To date" being the key words. STS had a flawless record up to it's 25th flight. Atlas V is on it's 21st. I'm not saying that Atlas V isn't a great rocket. However, it doesn't have nearly the same amount of flight history, unless you start looking at the whole Atlas family, and then you have some catostrophic failures you have to count.

Incorrect.  The flaw from the 25th flight was already demonstrated by the 2nd.   It just happened to have an o ring failure away from the ET on STS-2.

The issues with the case-to-case field joints and the case-to-nozzle joints were demonstrated before 51-L, but none of them failed to seal until then.  The event on STS-2 would not have been catastrophic in a different location on the circumference.

[Robotbeat]

I don't know why I even bother. It's not like R&D has mattered to NASA or many in the "space community" since the 80s. Now the big deal is the launchers, not so much what flies on them (unless it's a tin can with a human in it).

You're looking in the wrong direction. The other half of the space community (unmanned) regularly does lots of R&D, the best of which trickles down to the manned program. Since nobody get killed if the tech doesn't work, and since nearly every unmanned NASA spacecraft is a one-off, this just works better. And that's why there is a relatively enormous SEP rocket on its way to Vesta and later Ceres, a spacecraft around the Moon demonstrating a multiple TB/day comm link on DSN, and rover to be launched next year that will be the largest demonstration of Mars EDL to date.

So yes, NASA has plenty of R&D. It just doesn't need a redundant program on the manned side...

And how much exploration has the manned part of NASA done since stopping R&D (which you seem to imply)?

[Jeff Bingham]

If President Obama is wise he'll soon hire some smarter political spinners that have much better connections to Congress and the public.

Most Americans want their President to be quite successful. It takes some really strange political advice to the President to create this kind of mess and need Congress to step in and fix it.

On the contrary, the President's team did a great job of putting out a proposal and negotiating with Congress to make as many people as possible happy.

If you could be specific about the "negotiating" you're referring to, I'd REALLY be interested in hearing about that.

You would know a lot more about this. But it's obvious that Nelson and others were trying to put as much of the FY2011 NASA Budget as possible in this compromise bill. So that it would be acceptable to the President.

Sure, but that's a VERY different thing than suggesting the White House was actively involved in "negotiations," however.