Senator Brown, not seen him before.Making a political point about taxes for high earners.Think he's Cleveland as he was talking about Glenn too.
Fascinating, the Senator is lobbying hard for Orion but has not mentioned SLS much if at all.
Sen. Hutchison noted that NASA could be without cargo or crew transportation to ISS if commercial don't succeed.She then said that NASA shouldn't spend too much money on commercial systems.Yes, that makes sense. (More money for commercial = less risk of being without ISS transportation.)
Senator Brown only seems concerned with Glenn, as expected I suppose. 10 healthy centers.
Funny interchange about Orbiter retirement assignments. "For once I have no dog or orbiter in this fight."
Mr. Bolden will announce Orbiter assignments (including Enterprise) at 1pm tomorrow.
In the end, they are mostly concerned about their own districts. The rest of government comes second it seems.
Senator Hutchison {comparing 2011/2012 budgets} this budget deliberately hamstrings Orion.The Senator seemed really concerned about moving Orion forward and her opening statement also stated developing a balanced (gov/comm) approach. Nothing she's read so far justifies such a large investment in commercial.
Sounds like he's lobbying for Dayton, Ohio.
Again mentions SLS - saying it will be a SD HLV not a Constellation vehicle. Wowx2. Has he been sold on SLS now??
Here we go with questions about HLV by 2016, notes the importance. Also asking about the 21st Century launch complex. Enough funding for the schedule for testing?General Bolden:A-3 Test Stand to be completed at Stennis.Demoed AJ-24 at Stennis. Has potential for upgrade for a heavier vehicle past Taurus II, talks with Aerojet.Oh well, no questions specific to HLV.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/11/2011 08:57 pmAgain mentions SLS - saying it will be a SD HLV not a Constellation vehicle. Wowx2. Has he been sold on SLS now??I think they (NASA) are stalling, but that's conjecture on my part. Bolden mentioned contract about Orion, but NOTHING on the launch vehicle.
Senator Hutchison asking about contract modifications, fears things are being dragged out.General Bolden: Orion may not need a contract modification. It's a BEO vehicle. But got to get costs down, descope the vehicle in some manner.
Quote from: robertross on 04/11/2011 09:02 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 04/11/2011 08:57 pmAgain mentions SLS - saying it will be a SD HLV not a Constellation vehicle. Wowx2. Has he been sold on SLS now??I think they (NASA) are stalling, but that's conjecture on my part. Bolden mentioned contract about Orion, but NOTHING on the launch vehicle.Eh? You missed everything about it being SD. Will be evolvable. Will eventually be 130mt. He spoke lots about SLS. He just wasn't asked about it.Your post say "Nothing on the launch vehicles" which is not accurate. Re-watch the video afterwards, you missed a chunk.
Bolden said (paraphrased): 'We haven't done anything on the reference vehicle, because we weren't sure what exactly you wanted. We're using the (70mt-130mt) as the reference vehicle baseline, but that could change.'At least something to that affect. To me, they (NASA) are waiting for the 3 RAC team reports to come out to convince congress that there is a better way.(As an aside, and somthing I've been chewing on, is IF during that one-on-one between Obama & Musk at KSC, that Musk didn't exchange words about FH and how it can meet their needs, he just needed more time. Then Obama presents 'his' commercial budget with technology development, but congress had other ideas)
Senator Hutchison asking about contract modifications, fears things are being dragged out.General Bolden: Orion may not need a contract modification. It's a BEO vehicle. But got to get costs down, descope the vehicle in some manner.Orion is the DRV. Our hope is to work an evolvable HLV.SLS will eventually end up, no question, with a 130mt vehicle. First vehicle may be a 70mt vehicle.WOW, he's practically confirming SD HLV as it stands now?http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/03/sls-studies-focusing-sd-hlv-versus-rp-1-f-1-engines/
Senator Mikulski: How do you get off the GAO risk list? And is there a new world order on contracting (cost plus to fixed price)?Mr. Bolden: Doubt we will ever get off that list, what we do is one of a kind.
General Bolden notes they will have to pass the NASA standards. Any test that would - or will - be required of the MPCV, a commercial vehicle will have to pass such a test.
Mr Bolden: My plan is next week to give you "the plan for the plan".
Glenn will keep responsibility for Orion based work on the new vehicle, whatever they call it (MPCV).
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/11/2011 09:16 pmGeneral Bolden notes they will have to pass the NASA standards. Any test that would - or will - be required of the MPCV, a commercial vehicle will have to pass such a test.This has an interesting implication. It also could mean that MPCV must pass any test required of the commercial crew taxis. That could lead to a longer and more phased LEO test program for MPCV.
Quote from: northanger on 04/11/2011 09:21 pmMr Bolden: My plan is next week to give you "the plan for the plan".Seriously, he said that? So what the heck has been happening for the last two or so years? So just now we are beginning to make a plan to make a plan? Seriously, someone tell me that I am not understanding that correctly, please.
(deafening silence ensues)
I think Robert's been listening to a difference event
And while Bolden did make it sound like SLS was definitely going to be Shuttle-derived, in actuality he just said that the SLS design reference vehicle is Shuttle-derived. There is no guarantee that what NASA actually chooses for SLS will be the DRV.
Wow, sounds like CR for FY2011 will include 'flexibility' for NASA to work around CxP action to not cancel. Comes out at midnight IIRC?
Here is the archived webcast:http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=d06b2a76-79c2-43ac-b464-746d9233fa1b
"In any of the contracts we have now, we cannot pay the amount of money that was contracted years ago..." "...we have got to get our costs down." "We may have to descope the vehicle in some manner."
Quote from: robertross on 04/11/2011 11:53 pm"In any of the contracts we have now, we cannot pay the amount of money that was contracted years ago..." "...we have got to get our costs down." "We may have to descope the vehicle in some manner."Yet it seems the vehicle is still divided in that the SM is managed by Glenn and the CM is managed by JSC, along with the "overall vehicle".If cost is paramount does that make logical sense? I am absolutely convinced that part of the way to keep from not having to pay "the amount of money that was contracted years ago" is to minimize the amount of oversight that can drive requirements, a test here or there, extra long working an effort that everyone else believes is resolved, etc. But we're keeping the status quo there with respect to the NASA centers and their piece of the pie.
And he said more than that, but I'm not sure why you're being negative about this all. Remember, last time he was talking about five year studies and game changing propulsion. Now he's directly referencing SLS as the HLV we've written about.That's progression. Yes, the studies are going on pointlessly too long as I bet if he had the chance to hand over the keys for everything to commercial he and Ms Garver would jump at the chance, but per LAW - and that's what some people have ignored - he is restricted from doing such a thing.Today we saw him referencing this vehicle with as the DRV - still the DRV - with very little RAC time to go.
I am just thinking out loud here, but could Admin. Bolden be waiting for the ability to terminate CxP contracts so that he could terminate the Orion contract, providing an opportunity to completely restructure the Orion contract with LM such that NASA oversight is radically lessened, e.g., only one center having oversight for the entire MPCV project and even that is kept to as low as possible. Would that be a way to cut costs? That wouldn't help the 10 healthy centers concern, but really, if Congress wants 10 "healthy" centers, that will take more $$ than what they have been offering.
Mr Bolden: My plan is next week to give you "the plan for the plan".We are not stalling or wasting money.
If I sound pessimistic it's only because that is what I have come to expect from this Administration after more than two years in office. If they had actually wanted to accomplish something positive with NASA, they would have started two years ago. Or at least immediately after the Augustine committee had completed their report.
While not on purpose, today's hearing only empowers commercial solutions. It is getting harder and harder to support 9 Centers +JPL and make it all work for 18.7 billion.VRTEARE327
Appreciate your comment 51D Mascot. But I think you need to appreciate that maybe some of us, who've been part of the space program all our careers, find it hard to watch such hearings about the "bright future" when a huge amount of people have already received the pink slips.With the greatest of respect to you, and to Chris who said he was happy with the hearing, we have already been betrayed by our political system. Sorry, but that is how a lot of us feel.
Quote from: northanger on 04/11/2011 09:21 pmMr Bolden: My plan is next week to give you "the plan for the plan".We are not stalling or wasting money.What's the plan for the plan? I didn't really understand that part.
{94:50} It is my hope that within the week we will be able to bring to the staffs a status, a report that I have received, that my senior management has been receiving incrementally now on the multi-purpose crew vehicle — the plan for the plan, if you will — on the multi-purpose crew vehicle, the space launch system, and 21st century launch complex. We have done incredible work, we have not been standing still. We've been doing this for almost a year now and we're at the point — this is what supported our making the decision on the Design Reference Vehicles. But we're now ready to bring that to the committees so that you can get incremental looks at how we're progressing. So that you see that we are not stalling, we're not standing by, we're not wasting time nor money. That we have a plan and that if we are able to follow that plan and that plan is sufficiently supported by budgets that we say we need, we will develop the Nation's best heavy launch system they have ever had and a deep space exploration vehicle that will do the things that we've all dreamed about up until now but nobody's had the courage to do. So we're going to do that and it's our desire to bring those reports to this committee, to the staffs, at increments as we go along.
51D, just curious as to what the logic was in switching Orion to "MPCV" in the 2010 Auth? I only ask because this name change always seems to cause Senators and Congressmen to trip over themselves during these hearings. Even Bolden, today, said something to the effect of "I don't care what we call it," when trying to answer Senator Hutchison's confusing Orion-to-MPCV questions.
Quote from: robertross on 04/11/2011 11:53 pm"In any of the contracts we have now, we cannot pay the amount of money that was contracted years ago..." "...we have got to get our costs down." "We may have to descope the vehicle in some manner."Yet it seems the vehicle is still divided in that the SM is managed by Glenn and the CM is managed by JSC, along with the "overall vehicle".If cost is paramount does that make logical sense? ...
But it's nearly impossible for Obama to kill a project that provides jobs in 43 states
"It's about political engineering," says Mandy Smithberger, a national security staff member of the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington nonprofit. "Companies design weapons systems to make them difficult to kill."
The COTS program [...] is significantly behind schedule.
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/12/2011 01:11 amQuote from: robertross on 04/11/2011 11:53 pm"In any of the contracts we have now, we cannot pay the amount of money that was contracted years ago..." "...we have got to get our costs down." "We may have to descope the vehicle in some manner."Yet it seems the vehicle is still divided in that the SM is managed by Glenn and the CM is managed by JSC, along with the "overall vehicle".If cost is paramount does that make logical sense? ...Painfully obvious, isnt it ?QuoteBut it's nearly impossible for Obama to kill a project that provides jobs in 43 states Quote"It's about political engineering," says Mandy Smithberger, a national security staff member of the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington nonprofit. "Companies design weapons systems to make them difficult to kill."
Quote from: Spacely on 04/12/2011 05:39 am51D, just curious as to what the logic was in switching Orion to "MPCV" in the 2010 Auth? I only ask because this name change always seems to cause Senators and Congressmen to trip over themselves during these hearings. Even Bolden, today, said something to the effect of "I don't care what we call it," when trying to answer Senator Hutchison's confusing Orion-to-MPCV questions.Simply a matter of "genericizing" both the launch vehicle (SLS) and crew vehicle (MPCV) to distinguish them in a programmatic way from Constellation, which it was clear had lost political support as an overall program in the Senate, where the 2010 Act originated. Subsequent to passage of the Act, when it became clear that the elements in the Administration were intent on wiping the vehicle development slate clean--in defiance of the clear mandate and special authority granted to modify the Constellation contracts in order to expedite development of a shuttle-and-Constellation-derived combination of launcher and crew vehicle, did it seem necessary to--in the case of the MPCV--revert to calling it "Orion-based" or "Orion/MPCV" to underscore the intent of the law to use that vehicle as the basis for the follow-on development. The "confusion" has to do with the matter of inadequate NASA's legalistic explanation for not having already moved forward with the necessary contract stipulations to implement the "transition" to MPCV using the existing Orion contract. Since NASA's General Counsel and NASA's procurement office have BOTH signed off on the viability of that modification--as a means of side-stepping the no-longer-necessary 2010 appropriations prohibition against cancelling Constellation (versus redirecting it to a "new" set of requirements), it is incomprehensible why that action hasn't been taken long before now--six months after enactment of the law. (The POINT of the law pressing in the direction of using available shuttle and constellation capabilities, work-force, contracts, etc., was to EXPEDITE development of replacement systems to the Shuttle, and minimize the gap between shuttle and those replacement capabilities; slow-rolling the contract modifications and threatening (internally) to cancel all Constellation-related work and start with a "clean-sheet" design and lengthy new procurement process, is precisely what the law intended to avoid.)
Although it is clear that NASA does not want to terminate Orion, the threat of termination may be the only way for NASA to force LM to accept a modified contract. For example, NASA may have to threaten termination of Orion if LM refuses to switch from a cost plus contract to a fixed price contract. This is speculation on my part but the fact that NASA was unable to terminate their Orion contract with LM likely possibly makes re-negotiation of the contract that much harder.
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/12/2011 02:58 pmAlthough it is clear that NASA does not want to terminate Orion, the threat of termination may be the only way for NASA to force LM to accept a modified contract. For example, NASA may have to threaten termination of Orion if LM refuses to switch from a cost plus contract to a fixed price contract. This is speculation on my part but the fact that NASA was unable to terminate their Orion contract with LM likely possibly makes re-negotiation of the contract that much harder. A fixed-price contract for LM to *develop* Orion when it seems NASA is not changing in any way would be an assanine decision on NASA's part. They will pay more in the long-run and have less insight because NASA will have to pay LM the "fixed-price", regardless of what LM actually spent, and LM will place very large margins, as it should, on their proposal in order to protect themselves from NASA requirements creep. Again, fixed-price contract is hardly the solution to every problem.
My somewhat limited experience with fixed price contracts is the customer says this is what I want and this is how much I will pay. The contractor then has to cram as much work as he can into the smallest amount of money to realize the largest profit.I have never seen an FFP go the way of hey, tell us how much this will cost...
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 04/12/2011 11:51 amQuote from: Spacely on 04/12/2011 05:39 am51D, just curious as to what the logic was in switching Orion to "MPCV" in the 2010 Auth? I only ask because this name change always seems to cause Senators and Congressmen to trip over themselves during these hearings. Even Bolden, today, said something to the effect of "I don't care what we call it," when trying to answer Senator Hutchison's confusing Orion-to-MPCV questions.Simply a matter of "genericizing" both the launch vehicle (SLS) and crew vehicle (MPCV) to distinguish them in a programmatic way from Constellation, which it was clear had lost political support as an overall program in the Senate, where the 2010 Act originated. Subsequent to passage of the Act, when it became clear that the elements in the Administration were intent on wiping the vehicle development slate clean--in defiance of the clear mandate and special authority granted to modify the Constellation contracts in order to expedite development of a shuttle-and-Constellation-derived combination of launcher and crew vehicle, did it seem necessary to--in the case of the MPCV--revert to calling it "Orion-based" or "Orion/MPCV" to underscore the intent of the law to use that vehicle as the basis for the follow-on development. The "confusion" has to do with the matter of inadequate NASA's legalistic explanation for not having already moved forward with the necessary contract stipulations to implement the "transition" to MPCV using the existing Orion contract. Since NASA's General Counsel and NASA's procurement office have BOTH signed off on the viability of that modification--as a means of side-stepping the no-longer-necessary 2010 appropriations prohibition against cancelling Constellation (versus redirecting it to a "new" set of requirements), it is incomprehensible why that action hasn't been taken long before now--six months after enactment of the law. (The POINT of the law pressing in the direction of using available shuttle and constellation capabilities, work-force, contracts, etc., was to EXPEDITE development of replacement systems to the Shuttle, and minimize the gap between shuttle and those replacement capabilities; slow-rolling the contract modifications and threatening (internally) to cancel all Constellation-related work and start with a "clean-sheet" design and lengthy new procurement process, is precisely what the law intended to avoid.)First, thanks for the reminder that what is visible on the surface is not the whole story. Everything that follows is written bearing that in mind.Ongoing behind-the-scenes "negotations" between Congressional and Executive players have been in play since the Authorization Act was passed (and before) - yet as you have said repeatedly we have a slow-roll that has been quite effective, despite the Authorization language and the mod.Summoning NASA Administrators and AAs and OMB and OTSP to the Hill is certainly a method of conveying intent but seems to have little effect. Certainly everyone involved would prefer to handle things below the level of open and obvious conflict but it _appears_ that those engaged in waiting out the clock and the budget and/or using threats of clean-sheeting are also counting on the unwillingness to publicly throw down the gauntlet.I recognize you can't speak about internal thinking re: strategy. I also know that timing is everything, and that in addition to the strategic aspects of same there are other issues confronting the gov't - chief among them closing the deal struck last Friday, which is certainly a higher priority than NASA's struggles. Finally, I realize that surfacing conflicts and invoking legal consequences for absence of cooperation is an expenditure of political capital that invariably leads to payback. Personally, I'm not inclined to act in such a way most of the time - not for lack of will, but for precisely those reasons.But. I suppose I'm just adding my voice to those who are saddened by obfuscations, and voicing my personal opinion that the unwillingness to publicly put the screws to foot-draggers is a part of their calculus - which to date, has been largely successful. Under those circumstances, one wonders how long discussion and negotiation should continue?
I was always under the impression that 'Cost-Plus' evolved due to government's inability to keep its fingers out of the development cookie-jar. Namely the tendency to announce a 'system' in which the target of development never stopped moving.Therefore, to my way of thinking, Fixed costs implies fixed requirements. You give me X end result for Y dollars. Cost-plus implies that there isn't a design so much as a concept that needs developed. Both types of contracting have their place and their uses. The big problem that I see is that both sides have gotten way too used to the 'moving target' mentality with DoD and NASA contracts and thus, the 'cost plus' mentality has expanded to areas it should never have been.
MPCV is just a rebranded Orion, as far as I'm aware.
An alert from the Space Frontier Foundation:"The U.S. House of Representatives' Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies has asked your Member of Congress for their input on what programs in NASA (and other agencies) should receive increased or decreased funding in FY2012. This gives you an opportunity to have your Representative support vital NASA initiatives like Commercial Crew and Space Technology."Call your Representatives' office in Washington, D.C. ASAP(before noon on Friday, May 20th)Ask to speak to the staff person who handles "NASA appropriations" and ask that staffer to take two actions: 1. Submit a request to the House Appropriations Committee recommending that the Committee fully fund NASA's Commercial Crew program in FY2012 at the President's requested level of $850 million. 2. Submit a request to the same Committee recommending that the Committee fully fund NASA's Space Technology (including Exploration Technology) program in FY2012 at the requested level of $1.024 billion. To make their job easier, tell the staffer they may contact Congressman Dana Rohrabacher's or Zoe Lofgren's office for a copy of the specific language to use for these two funding requests.Additional Information: If you need arguments as to why Commercial Crew and Space Technology deserve full funding, here are the draft descriptions from the appropriations request language:NASA Commercial Crew Program - When the Space Shuttle retires this summer, America will be wholly dependent on Russia to launch our astronauts to the Space Station, sending nearly $400 million overseas each year. Commercial Crew will competitively fund the fastest-possible development of safe and affordable made-in-America vehicles, creating thousands of American jobs and enabling full use of the Space Station. We strongly support full funding of the requested level of $850,000,000 in FY2012. NASA Space Technology Program (STP) - America must invest in new technology to stay ahead of foreign space powers like Russia and China. NASA's Space Technology Program, which now includes Exploration Technology Development and Demonstration (ETDD), is NASA's primary cutting edge R&D initiative. STP/ETDD funding enables NASA's research centers and America's small businesses and innovators to assure America's leadership in space. We support funding at the requested level of $1,024,200,000. "A note from me: whenever contacting a congressional office, first off, make sure you are their constituent, and secondly, letters (even faxes) are better than phone calls.
