Author Topic: NASA FY 2012 Budget Request for NASA Updates (Read 53330 times)

robertross · « **Reply #80 on:** 04/11/2011 09:47 pm »

Quote from: Mark S on 04/11/2011 09:34 pm

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.

exactly. There was no commitment that ANYTHING for the launch vehicle contracts was being novated or anything.

- They cancelled work that had no contracts (understandable, but we don't know how deep an issue that could be)

- They didn't see a need to change any contracts with Orion, since its current configuration will meet the MPCV requirements (I don't think he got that correct, since he probably meant the block 1/LEO variant, not the block2/BEO variant).

- They weren't sure what to do about the Ares Contracts since they didn't know what the final vehicle would be. Are you kidding me??

I also take exception to this metric ton nonsense. For it to be bandied about so many times without one word of exception taken by congress, it must be the way 'forward' (or backwards, depending on how you look at it).

My thoughts now are leaning towards a full cancellation of SD-HLV. They will come up with a whole bunch of charts saying how expensive it will be, blaming congress for CRs, defunding, and what have you, and present either a 'commercial' alternative (maybe even the FH), or their kerolox baby, which they've been salivating over for some time now.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #81 on:** 04/11/2011 10:05 pm »

Can we stick to what was actually said, not assumptions. Thanks.

Downix · « **Reply #82 on:** 04/11/2011 10:07 pm »

This went well, all in all. This is the most authoritative I have seen Admin Bolton to date, most impressive. From what I am hearing, he's impressed some of those in the room as well.

Mark S · « **Reply #83 on:** 04/11/2011 10:15 pm »

Yeah, just more of the same from Bolden. Stall, delay, postpone, descope, never commit, always something definitive coming real soon now, but not today.

I think that as soon as the FY10 appropriations rider that prevents cancellation of CxP projects is rescinded, all of those contracts will be summarily cancelled, and not novated for SLS. The excuse given will be something to the effect of finding the best solution, evaluating all options, looking for ways to out-innovate and out-educate, etc, etc. Drivel piled on top of drivel, delay piled on delay.

NASA has not novated any CxP contracts for SLS because they don't want any SLS contracts, plain and simple. The minute they enter into a binding contract specifically for SLS, they will be committed to a plan and a path towards SLS and that is the last thing they want.

yg1968 · « **Reply #84 on:** 04/11/2011 10:25 pm »

Quote from: robertross on 04/11/2011 09:00 pm

Wow, sounds like CR for FY2011 will include 'flexibility' for NASA to work around CxP action to not cancel. Comes out at midnight IIRC?

We have know that for a while. We knew that short term CRs wouldn't fix these problems. But it was expected that a long term CR would fix such problems. This wasn't just the case for NASA, it was also the case for other agencies (new programs cannot be started unless otherwise stated in the CR, etc.).

yg1968 · « **Reply #85 on:** 04/11/2011 10:26 pm »

Here is the archived webcast:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=d06b2a76-79c2-43ac-b464-746d9233fa1b

robertross · « **Reply #86 on:** 04/11/2011 11:53 pm »

Quote from: yg1968 on 04/11/2011 10:26 pm

Here is the archived webcast:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=d06b2a76-79c2-43ac-b464-746d9233fa1b

Thanks.

For what I have been 'harping about' in the previous posts, I would direct people to the 66:56 mark. This is where it starts on Orion & the HLV contracts.

quotes (all Gen Bolden), emphasis mine:

"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."

HLV: "It will be an evolving program to get there though. The first vehicle that we fly may be a 70mt vehicle, but we will eventually have a 130mt vehicle"

"Orion, the vehicle, Orion, is already in testing as a MPCV"

"At my direction...I told them that we should focus on putting our money on technology and assets that could move forward to a deep space exploration system..." "We are not making much progress on a HLV right now, because it is not clear that the Ares configuration is what you want to go with. And as you saw, the design reference vehicle for a SLS is a Shuttle derived system, not the Ares system. I know that there will be some contract mods required to go from an Ares system to a Shuttle-Derived System..."

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #87 on:** 04/12/2011 12:21 am »

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.

Namechange User · « **Reply #88 on:** 04/12/2011 01:11 am »

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.

With all of that, I noted with delicious irony when I watched part of the webcast that the Appropriations committee website is framed in the Russian flag.

Jorge · « **Reply #89 on:** 04/12/2011 01:19 am »

Quote from: OV-106 on 04/12/2011 01:11 am

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.

I was puzzled by that, too. I remember a couple of months ago that "Flagship Technologies" was transferred from JSC to Glenn and I had assumed (erroneously, as it turns out) that this was a "sweetener" to Glenn in return for giving up the Orion SM to JSC, so that Orion oversight could be consolidated and costs reduced.

robertross · « **Reply #90 on:** 04/12/2011 01:28 am »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/12/2011 12:21 am

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 guess I'm being negative because I've come to realize, after a summation of thoughts from many members on here, and the congressional meetings, and the administration, that the differences between the various 'factions' are too far apart to EVER come to a concensus.

Point 1: I think everyone agrees Gen. Bolden is a man, a soldier, of honour - one who will follow his 'superiors' (or more correctly: superior's) request. He might be directed by Congress to have NASA follow a certain course of action, but he takes his orders from the President, Obama.

Point 2: We are only seeing the Orion capsule as the major element moving forward. J-2X is only to undergo testing, the same with 5-segments, so changing or ending those contracts is pointless (there may also be alterior motives to keeping those elements, but I''ll leave that alone). We are really seeing NOTHING about KEEPING anything that is necessary for a SD-HLV that was the original "intent of the law", with 4-segment boosters, the workforce, and use of the existing infrastructure. Now this is hotly debated, and people can draw their own conclusions from this, but for everything that one could consider 'pressing' in this matter, there is no urgency to getting the job done - just more and more delays, by Mr. Cooke & Gen. Bolden.

Point 3: I believe Gen. Bolden cares deeply about NASA, so much so that he would do anything to ensure its survival. America is on the cusp of something so profound, so disturbing, so unimaginable, that he knows that he has an opportunity to salvage 'something' for the agency. By NOT novating certain contracts, they can preserve a core function for NASA, and put off any high-dollar spending for BEO ops for (perhaps) 1-2 decades. The United States is facing a budget crisis that will require some 'hard choices' for many, and President Obama has known this for some time (even if others consider it secondary to the country's growing economic crisis). One choice might be to give up on deep space exploration for some time, and focus more on technologies - not unlike his original FY2011 budget proposal. But congress, as seen plainly in this small webcast appropriations meeting, that congress members will ONLY care for its own region despite the effects on the nation. We all heard it: while one is saying 'flat budgets until 2016', another is asking 'what about 10 robust centers... what about Plum Brook'.

America is broke, broken, and disillusioned. For once I see an attempt to save a key component of what makes America great, and maybe it will survive, but in a different way of 'doing business'.

Namechange User · « **Reply #91 on:** 04/12/2011 01:56 am »

"Ten healthy centers" is one thing having multiple centers control an element of one spacecraft is quite another. There is zero reason that certain facilities, like Plum Brook, could not be used for testing if it proves either capabilities that others lack, is more coste effective, etc

But, General Bolden should not be preaching about reducing costs, etc and then overlook the very easy thing he could do within his own agency.

EE Scott · « **Reply #92 on:** 04/12/2011 02:09 am »

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.

Namechange User · « **Reply #93 on:** 04/12/2011 02:16 am »

I doubt the Orion contract specifically mentions how NASA organizes internally the management of the project. This is something NASA could have changed at any point with no consequences to the actual execution of the work, at most a couple of change notices to the contract to realign center responsibilities *if* it happens to contain any such wording along those lines.

Mark S · « **Reply #94 on:** 04/12/2011 02:31 am »

I think Bolden is waiting, but not to restructure, only to cancel. The CxP contract cancellations will be numerous and immediate, as soon as the restriction has been lifted. Any restructuring or novating of CxP contracts for SLS will be long drawn-out processes full of delays, extended time-lines, and senseless restarts. And of course more reports, analyses, and investigations will be required before any contracts are signed. Look for the first contract to be signed sometime after the next Presidential election.

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.

robertross · « **Reply #95 on:** 04/12/2011 02:36 am »

Quote from: EE Scott on 04/12/2011 02:09 am

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.

General Bolden is now on record for saying that they have contracts they can't afford. It's crippling NASA's ability to move forward as it wants to. If the FY2011 budget eliminates much of the carrying of CxP contracts, as mentioned, then I still don't think we will see new contracts made. We may see a few novated, but I doubt the big ones - because there is still no plan of action (again, his words - paraphrased).

I think we're going to see some of those boards/slides showing the near and long-term costs of the 3 options: SD-HLV, Kerolox, and EELV being presented, and congress probably gasping at the numbers. Even if shuttle derived is one of the cheapest options for the greatest capability, a severe wake-up call, based on the upcoming flat-line budgets (I can take that kind of comment two ways...), will show there is NO OPTION that can meet the budget projections. So we could see a fall-back position of wait-and-see, as many predicted, of kicking the can down the road, and then maybe (just maybe, not a prediction but a thought) Elon could stand up and say "I'm going that way (Mars), want to come along?". Whether that happens, pure conjecture.

The point is that much of what was possible 2-3 years ago is being, as feared, allowed to slip away. Whether by design, or a result of in-fighting, it's hard to say, but I've put my thoughts out on the matter. Troubled times ahead (yet again) for NASA.

RocketEconomist327 · « **Reply #96 on:** 04/12/2011 02:37 am »

I saw things very differently. Between Congresswoman Fudge two weeks ago and Senator Brown, all I have to say is:

WHAT ABOUT GLENN!?!!?

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.

VR
TEA
RE327

yg1968 · « **Reply #97 on:** 04/12/2011 02:38 am »

Quote from: northanger on 04/11/2011 09:21 pm

Mr 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.

robertross · « **Reply #98 on:** 04/12/2011 02:41 am »

Quote from: Mark S on 04/12/2011 02:31 am

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.

Agreed.

And what did we get from that? A funding program for technology development. Very revealing.

Namechange User · « **Reply #99 on:** 04/12/2011 02:48 am »

Quote from: RocketScientist327 on 04/12/2011 02:37 am

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.

VR
TEA
RE327

Again with the "empowering commercial solutions" but, of course, the problem is these "solutions" do not exist and will not, at best, for maybe another four years. You don't see all these announcements being made about flights and applications beyond NASA missions, etc.

Instead, the business case is cautious at best. Oh, "commercial solutions" will move forward, contingent on government funding for development that will meet government requirements to a government destination that is the "cornerstone" of the business case (and a "cornerstone" that could not see its full potential or deteriorate making a very chicken-and-egg situation).

Again, fostering a *true* commercial market is a worthy and necessary action. It is worthy of some government seed money to help push it along. But let's not spin and attempt to make it sound like something it is currently not or that it will just suddenly spring to life in all its glory because some have *said* it will. That is the economics of it in reference to your little tag at the bottom of your posts.