Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

[gladiator1332]

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 article. Just speculating here...but many have said she was the main supporter of FY2011. Now she seems somewhat supportive of the compromise. Is there any possibility she is supporting this compromise in order to become admin at some point?

[jimgagnon]

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 article. Just speculating here...but many have said she was the main supporter of FY2011. Now she seems somewhat supportive of the compromise. Is there any possibility she is supporting this compromise in order to become admin at some point?

If I were to venture a guess, I would say her stance is more of a reflection that the process is hardly over, and that also this is the first budget that the Bolden/Garver team has submitted to Congress. They undoubtedly learned a lot about Congress, NASA and the various factions involved in HSF.

[nooneofconsequence]

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 article. Just speculating here...but many have said she was the main supporter of FY2011. Now she seems somewhat supportive of the compromise. Is there any possibility she is supporting this compromise in order to become admin at some point?

If I were to venture a guess, I would say her stance is more of a reflection that the process is hardly over, and that also this is the first budget that the Bolden/Garver team has submitted to Congress. They undoubtedly learned a lot about Congress, NASA and the various factions involved in HSF.

Yes Jim. Key phrases to focus on

We really feel that the bill preserves those most important parts of the President's budget in pivoting to a realignment of the program to the 21st century. So just the rocket itself we feel is a piece that takes advantage of the commercial crew aspects that allows us to reduce the space transportation costs for astronauts. We also are investing in the 21st century launch which should reduce our infrastructure costs. All of that will teach us, and we have to learn it quickly, how to do things differently so that we can have this budget be a doable thing.

[neilh]

(moved from the DIRECT thread)

While we are all still waiting for the dust to settle from these momentous events, there are a couple of points I'm hoping to get some clarification on.
...
3. We get the flexible path Moon, NEOs and Mars as destinations. As someone who is a strong supporter of a return to the Moon, how likely are we to see that, as SLS's first destination and, before the end of the decade. Assuming the Atlas/Jupiter launch configuration is Centaur has been mentioned as being used in conjunction with Orion - would that lead to an LOR mission mode assuming no fuel depot with reusable lander?

To be blunt with DIRECT's victory essentially assured, I WANT THE MOON AS ITS TARGET.

If I understand the bill correctly, the National Academies will conduct a study in FY2012 to answer the questions of long-term goals, architecture, and destinations. I actually think this a responsible approach, as we'll have a better idea of how SDLV development, limited technology development, and commercial crew are progressing at that time and be able to make better decisions/assessments accordingly:


http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/NASA%20Rockefeller1.pdf

SEC. 204. INDEPENDENT STUDY ON HUMAN EXPLORATION OF SPACE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In fiscal year 2012 the Administrator shall contract with the National Academies for a review of the goals, core capabilities, and direction of human space flight, using the goals set forth in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008, the goals set forth in this Act, and goals set forth in any existing statement of space policy issued by the President.
(b) ELEMENTS.—The review shall include—
(1) a broad spectrum of participation with representatives of a range of disciplines, backgrounds, and generations, including civil, commercial, international, scientific, and national security interests;
(2) input from NASA’s international partner discussions and NASA’s Human Exploration Framework Team;
(3) an examination of the relationship of national goals to foundational capabilities, robotic activities, technologies, and missions authorized by this Act;
(4) a review and prioritization of scientific, engineering, economic, and social science questions to be addressed by human space exploration to improve the overall human condition; and
(5) findings and recommendations for fiscal years 2014 through 2023

[mr_magoo]

Looks like an attempt at a second bite at the apple for the moon folks.  They direct the use of the 2005 and 2008 bills as reference goals for the NAS study.   I'm sure both include lunar language.   Probably the best the Cx huggers could get into the bill.   

[neilh]

A couple months ago Norm Augustine wrote a letter stating that the White House's proposal was essentially a modified version of the Augustine Committee's option 5B: Flexible Path with commercially-derived HLV operational in early 2020s, mid-2020s mission to NEO, and later missions to Mars orbit and Moon.

If I'm correctly assessing the Senate bill, it is analogous to the Augustine Committee's SDHLV-based option 5C, with modifications to push SDHLV forward to 2016 instead of the Committee's early-2020s proposal, in exchange for sharply cutting space technology funding below the Committee's proposal of $1.5B/yr and less commercial crew funding. It also leaves open the question of specific destinations to be resolved by a FY2012 National Academies study.

Is that accurate?

[Jorge]

A couple months ago Norm Augustine wrote a letter stating that the White House's proposal was essentially a modified version of the Augustine Committee's option 5B: Flexible Path with commercially-derived HLV operational in early 2020s, mid-2020s mission to NEO, and later missions to Mars orbit and Moon.

Mostly right, the major difference being that 5B specified Orion as the BEO spacecraft, while the original WH proposal cancelled Orion (and later brought it back as a CRV). 5B also specified the "less constrained" budget.

If I'm correctly assessing the Senate bill, it is analogous to the Augustine Committee's SDHLV-based option 5C, with modifications to push SDHLV forward to 2016 instead of the Committee's early-2020s proposal, in exchange for sharply cutting space technology funding below the Committee's proposal of $1.5B/yr and less commercial crew funding. It also leaves open the question of specific destinations to be resolved by a FY2012 National Academies study.

Is that accurate?

Looks close. Augustine 5C did specify the "less constrained" budget profile; since that is apparently not happening, the technology and commercial budgets got stretched out in the Senate bill.

[yg1968]

A couple months ago Norm Augustine wrote a letter stating that the White House's proposal was essentially a modified version of the Augustine Committee's option 5B: Flexible Path with commercially-derived HLV operational in early 2020s, mid-2020s mission to NEO, and later missions to Mars orbit and Moon.

If I'm correctly assessing the Senate bill, it is analogous to the Augustine Committee's SDHLV-based option 5C, with modifications to push SDHLV forward to 2016 instead of the Committee's early-2020s proposal, in exchange for sharply cutting space technology funding below the Committee's proposal of $1.5B/yr and less commercial crew funding. It also leaves open the question of specific destinations to be resolved by a FY2012 National Academies study.

Is that accurate?

Yes but because of the lack of increase of $3B in the budget, you could also argue that it ressembles the ISS focused option on slide 18 of the Sally Ride charts:

See slide 18:
http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.ppt

See also the scoring for these options here:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/392460main_scoring%20update_2009oct8.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378656main_04_-_Presentation4.ppt

[neilh]

A couple months ago Norm Augustine wrote a letter stating that the White House's proposal was essentially a modified version of the Augustine Committee's option 5B: Flexible Path with commercially-derived HLV operational in early 2020s, mid-2020s mission to NEO, and later missions to Mars orbit and Moon.

Mostly right, the major difference being that 5B specified Orion as the BEO spacecraft, while the original WH proposal cancelled Orion (and later brought it back as a CRV). 5B also specified the "less constrained" budget.

If I'm correctly assessing the Senate bill, it is analogous to the Augustine Committee's SDHLV-based option 5C, with modifications to push SDHLV forward to 2016 instead of the Committee's early-2020s proposal, in exchange for sharply cutting space technology funding below the Committee's proposal of $1.5B/yr and less commercial crew funding. It also leaves open the question of specific destinations to be resolved by a FY2012 National Academies study.

Is that accurate?

Looks close. Augustine 5C did specify the "less constrained" budget profile; since that is apparently not happening, the technology and commercial budgets got stretched out in the Senate bill.

Oh right, another key difference is that both the WH proposal and Senate bill have increases below the $3B/year proposed by the Augustine Committee.

[RyanC]

In the end neither the Ares or DIRECT folks will get what they want.

I strongly suspect that what we will see is a modular building block system similar to the Saturn series, with a two-stage inline rocket to put the Orion CSM into space and also have at least 60~70 tons into orbit capability with no CSM. (The Saturn INT-20/21 fell into this category)

For the 100+ tons and above growth goal; a third stage can be added, as can 4 segment or 5.5 segment SRBs (depending on how much ATK is feeling). This of course, would be a cargo only configuration.

[renclod]

In the press conference, Sen. Nelson said that he and Sen. Hutchinson have good friends in the White House, #1 and #2. IIRC.

Who is #2 in the WH ? The VP, Mr. Joe Biden ? Did he played any role in this matter ?

Edit: question from reporter was about the relationship with the WH, to characterize that.
Sen.Nelson said:
"Kay and I have two personal friends - they happen to be, number one and number two right now, down in the White House, ..."

Edit: IMO Sen. Nelson's personal friend, down in the WH is the #1, Pres. Obama.

[Mark S]

In the press conference, Sen. Nelson said that he and Sen. Hutchinson have good friends in the White House, #1 and #2. IIRC.

Who is #2 in the WH ? The VP, Mr. Joe Biden ? Did he played any role in this matter ?

Edit: question from reporter was about the relationship with the WH, to characterize that.
Sen.Nelson said:
"Kay and I have two personal friends - they happen to be, number one and number two right now, down in the White House, ..."

Edit: IMO Sen. Nelson's personal friend, down in the WH is the #1, Pres. Obama.

Obama and Biden are both former US Senators.  Biden from 1973 until he was sworn in as VP in 2009, and Obama from 2005 until he was also sworn in, as President in 2009.

Which is #1 and which is #2 is an exercise left up to the reader...

Yes, the US Senate is a very elite club.

Mark S.

[Danderman]

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

The WH would often negotiate via surrogates. Whether these surrogates are acting under instructions, or else simply independently acting in the interests of the WH is another issue.

[Rabidpanda]

In the end neither the Ares or DIRECT folks will get what they want.

I strongly suspect that what we will see is a modular building block system similar to the Saturn series, with a two-stage inline rocket to put the Orion CSM into space and also have at least 60~70 tons into orbit capability with no CSM. (The Saturn INT-20/21 fell into this category)

For the 100+ tons and above growth goal; a third stage can be added, as can 4 segment or 5.5 segment SRBs (depending on how much ATK is feeling). This of course, would be a cargo only configuration.

What makes you think that this is a likely outcome?

[RyanC]

What makes you think that this is a likely outcome?

Okay; let me put my reasoning forth:

1.) Ever since Challenger and Columbia; strap-on/sidemount is out of favor for a manned launch system.

The Shuttle was only put up with since a large portion of the costs had already been sunk; and to develop a new space transportation system would have cost a lot of money and delayed "return to space" much longer.

2.) A more flexible launch system was needed than the Shuttle -- with the Shuttle; if you wanted to put a crew into space, you had to do the whole STS stack with it's attendant costs.

Constellation's architecture of Ares I and Ares V was an attempt to solve that problem -- if you wanted to put some guys into space; you didn't have to break out the HLV. It foundered on the shoals of non-modularity leading to higher costs -- the Ares I Upper stage had nothing to do with any possible use for Ares V; unless you created Ares IV.

3.) After the 30 year headache with the Shuttle fleet and maintenance; NASA is looking towards keeping the whole thing simple for the next iteration. This precludes any really sexy stuff like a reusable fly-back first stage or lifting body re-entry system.

It also means that expendability will be a key design parameter -- which precludes the use of reusable engines like SSME. The high cost of SSME was allowable during the Shuttle Program, since we got them back on each mission.

Remember -- if this architecture and launch vehicle lasts as long as the shuttle -- thirty years at five launches or more a year, the savings of using an expendable engine like STME or RS-68 add up big time.

4.) The heavy bias towards inline for a manned launcher, the requirement for a growth path from 70t to 150t; and the directive to use as many Shuttle type parts as possible will lead to use of the Shuttle SRBs for the heavy growth variant, and the use of existing 8.4 meter diameter tooling at Michoud to make the stages.

So basically; everyone gets a little bit of what they want -- but they don't win the total victory that their promoters want.

The Constellation people win on the point of not having to break out the HLV each time you want to go to orbit, but lose on the "totally separate vehicle" bit.

The DIRECT people win in regards to reuse of the SRB and 8.4 meter ET diameter tooling; but lose on the engine selection and "one vehicle for everything!" bit.

[jimgagnon]

Remember -- if this architecture and launch vehicle lasts as long as the shuttle -- thirty years at five launches or more a year, the savings of using an expendable engine like STME or RS-68 add up big time.

When NASA put out the bid language for HLV proposals, they wanted quotes on 4 100mT launches per year. Some would like to see possible a variable launch rate where slowdowns and standdowns aren't expensive.

I think it would be a mistake to build this SD-HLV with a thirty-five years lifespan. Remember the bill language says that if a commercial alternative is available, it must be used. Elon Musk once said he could build a HLV for $3B The Air Force has long term plans for their own flyback booster, and ULA could take the Atlas V into that class should they perceive an opportunity.

All things point towards a relatively short lifespan for whatever SD-HLV we come up with. I would hate to see NASA try to amortize this launcher over four decades; one or two decades would seem to me more appropriate.

[pathfinder_01]

Remember -- if this architecture and launch vehicle lasts as long as the shuttle -- thirty years at five launches or more a year, the savings of using an expendable engine like STME or RS-68 add up big time.

When NASA put out the bid language for HLV proposals, they wanted quotes on 4 100mT launches per year. Some would like to see possible a variable launch rate where slowdowns and standdowns aren't expensive.

I think it would be a mistake to build this SD-HLV with a thirty-five years lifespan. Remember the bill language says that if a commercial alternative is available, it must be used. Elon Musk once said he could build a HLV for $3B The Air Force has long term plans for their own flyback booster, and ULA could take the Atlas V into that class should they perceive an opportunity.

All things point towards a relatively short lifespan for whatever SD-HLV we come up with. I would hate to see NASA try to amortize this launcher over four decades; one or two decades would seem to me more appropriate.

There is another fly in the ointment when it comes to shuttle derived. I am a big fan of the shuttle, but I hate shuttle derived. It looses the shuttle’s reuability but not enough costs to be justified as an HLV. With the shuttle the shuttle itself was reusable as well as many payloads like spacehab\space lab.

BEO exploration is much more expensive than LEO exploration because of the equipment one needs to do it. You need a BEO capable capule, a habitate unit and/or lander, and an earth departure stage. All of which are currently disposable in nature due to lacking propellant depots, advanced propulsion and experience developing reusable BEO capsules and landers. Orion currently costs about 1 billion a capsule. I can easily see a BEO stack costing 2-4 billion dollars. 

If your payloads cost 2-4 billion dollars, and your HLV is not cheap, and all of it must be replaced each launch, you wont get many BEO flights out of a 19 billion dollar budget esp. as usually only half of it goes to HSF.

[Cinder]

I am a big fan of the shuttle, but I hate shuttle derived. It looses the shuttle’s reuability but not enough costs to be justified as an HLV. With the shuttle the shuttle itself was reusable as well as many payloads like spacehab\space lab.

Pardon the layman question, but wasn't there a pair of charts posted recently, one of them showing a J-130 as much cheaper than STS on a basis of $/kg to orbit (in function of number of flights)?  STS was by far the most expensive curve.

[kraisee]

This one?

[KelvinZero]

Is there a good summary of this Authorization bill around?

I only found this. http://blog.nss.org/?p=1882

Particularly I am worried about what this means to the new technology budget.

(edit: some more links)
http://nasaengineer.com/?p=933 and in particular:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/07/13/nasa-senate-bill-cuts-proposed-effort-funds-commercial-crew-rate/#more-15367